Just how controversial is evidential holism?

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    11 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This paper is an examination of evidential holism, a prominent position in epistemology and the philosophy of science which claims that experiments only ever confirm or refute entire theories. The position is historically associated with W.V. Quine, and it is at once both popular and notorious, as well as being largely under-described. But even though there’s no univocal statement of what holism is or what it does, philosophers have nevertheless made substantial assumptions about its content and its truth. Moreover they have drawn controversial and important conclusions from these assumptions. In this paper I distinguish three types of evidential holism and argue that the most oft-cited and controversial thesis is entirely unmotivated. The other two theses are much overlooked, but are well-motivated and free from controversial implications.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)335-352
    Number of pages18
    JournalSynthese
    Volume173
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2010

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences(all)
    • Philosophy

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Just how controversial is evidential holism?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this