In Conversation: W. V. Quine - Block Panel - Section 6

Willard Van Orman Quine, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, has been described as the greatest living English-speaking philosopher. In this series, he takes part in an in-depth personal interview, and a penetrating analysis of his life's work in six panel discussions with some of today's leading philosophers. In discussions with some of today's leading philosophers. In discussions on his most important theses, Quine defends his views against the major criticisms—past and recent—to bring his position right up-to-date.

The Block Panel
Professor Ned Block is chairman of the philosophy department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He specializes in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology and his main area of current study concerns, he says, what we can learn about consciousness from neuropsychology. He has published widely in his fields, and has co-edited with Gerald Dworkin The IQ Controversy. He has written Imagery and edited two volumes of the Readings in Philosophy of Psychology.

In this program Professor Quine is questioned about his views on some of the major topics in philosophy of mind. His linguistic behaviorism is carefully examined and compared with programs in linguistics and neuroscience, and his gives his opinions on the field of cognitive science. The program concludes with Quine's views on the topics of mental causation and consciousness.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ned
• Block
• Willard
• Van
• Orman
• Quine
• W.V.O.
• Philosophy
• Logicism
• Mind
• Linguistics
• Cognitive
• Science
• Neuroscience
• Psychology
• Causation
• Consciousness

[natedaug1]

That was an old school nose blow, with the hanker-chief, and not a kleenex.

[LiberalVichy]

I also find the principle of thought individuation baffling.

[Guaguanco11]

Quine suggests that the replacement of the 'caloric theory' with 'the theory of heat' could have been construed as a reduction rather than an elimination. I disagree with this. I think that caloric discourse, like most other discourses, contains fundamental commitments such that if these commitments are not satisfied caloric discourse is in error and systematically false. I suppose Quine's views about analyticity preclude such a view for him.