>>13955591Fundamentally, who was right in the Quine-Carnap debate in terms of their dispute over the analytic-synthetic distinction? I found out that Jan Dejnožka wrote a paper on this topic:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272724608_Observational_Ecumenism_Holist_Sectarianism_The_Quine-Carnap_Conflict_on_Metaphysical_RealismDejnožka uses the term 'holophrastic empiricism' to describe Quine's approach to the issue, and argues that Carnap's approach is a rejection of Quine's 'full meaning holism.' Eg, if Carnap were to accept Quine's holism, Carnap's analytic-synthetic distinction would become untenable according to the terms of his own system.
Is this a reasonable approach? I haven't really studied ENOUGH Quine or Carnap to come to my own conclusions yet.
