Are Quine's arguments against the distinction between analytic and synthetic in

Are Quine's arguments against the distinction between analytic and synthetic in

Are Quine's arguments against the distinction between analytic and synthetic in "Two dogmas of empiricism" really convincing? I have read Grice and Strawson's "In defence of a dogma" and agree that there is consent enough about the situations where the distinction is applied to and about the results of those applications so that we can't say the distinction doesn't really exist. Am I wrong about it? What readings else should I do? André C.

Read another response by Emma Borg
Read another response about Language
Print