Abstract
The paper comments on Dummett's ‘Significance of Quine's Indeterminacy Thesis’ and discusses Quine's views on the translation of logical connectives. Some difficulties about the latter related to those raised by Morton (J. Phil. 70 (1973), 503–510) are considered. Quine seems here to be in a position considered by Dummett of not allowing a ‘foreigner’ to be translated as conflicting with one's own firm theoretical commitment (in this case classical logic). But Dummett seems wrong in holding that entrenched theoretical statements must be stimulus analytic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Additional information
A revised and expanded version of remarks at the Conference on Language, Intentionality, and Translation Theory, University of Connecticut, Storrs, March 2, 1973, commenting on Michael Dummett, ‘The Significance of Quine's Indeterminacy Thesis’. I am greatly indebted to the discussion at the Conference.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parsons, C. On translating logic. Synthese 27, 405–411 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484604
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484604