| 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.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. |
