Reply to professor Roth

On how antidogmatism bred dogmatism

Bibliographic Data

ID12592425
AuthorsFrank Ankersmit (corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume17
Issue4
Pages570-585
Publication date2013-10-25
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueRethinking History (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1364-2529 • E-ISSN: 1470-1154
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13642529.2013.849862
OpenAlexW2038262891
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited18

Quine's post-positivism was, mainly, an attack on the dogmatism of foundationalist philosophy of language and science claiming to offer an apriorist account of knowledge and of the relation between language and the world. In opposition to this dogmatism Quine's post-positivism required the philosopher of language and science to respect and be open to how in the practice of science knowledge may emerge. Roth's review of my book exemplifies how Quine's anti-dogmatism could become a dogma itself. Basically, by the refusal to recognize the immense variety in the practices of science and, consequently, that each science has its own. In Roth's case this unwillingness resulted in the projection of the practice of the sciences on that of history and the humanities. This compelled him to (unwittingly) embrace the dogma of the Unity of Science. This is how Quine's most recommendable anti-dogmatism could turn into dogmatism

Epistemology · Foundationalism · Logical positivism · Opposition (politics · Philosophy of science · Political science · Politics · Positivism · Quine · Relation (database · Sociology · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Philosophy, Science, and History

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub