Abstract

Quine is frequently acknowledged as one of the main proponents of both confirmation holism and underdetermination. In the recent literature, however, his views have been often criticized and misrepresented: the distinction between the two theses has been often blurred, the obviousness of holism has been rejected, and the plausibility of underdetermination has come under attack. This paper attempts to formulate both theses as clearly as possible and to defend Quine’s views against some recurrent criticisms. In particular, it is argued that Quine’s theses are significantly weaker than they have been taken to be and that only confirmation holism, but not underdetermination, plays a fundamental role in his philosophy. Key words: confirmation holism, underdetermination, Quine.