Defence of a Dogma

JONES concludes his brilliant post, this blog:

"this in itself is not an inconsistency, for surely abstaining from a dogma thus defined can't be unreasonable, and therefore won't be dogmatic (so long as the thing abstained from IS a dogma)."

Hear. hear.

I tend to recognise a brit by the spelling of 'defence'. Since Grice's and Strawson's thing (whose idea was to title it like that?) was published in an American journal, let that 'defense' pass. But it's always 'defence' with the Queen!

----

"In defence of a dogma"

Genial!

For Quine is MISUSING 'dogma'. Surely even Mill had dogmas when trying to reduce the analytic to the synthetic ("2 + 2 = 4" as synthetic).

So, Quine, in his 'sensationalist' American jargonese style uttered it, "Dogma!" without realising what he was uttering. Trying to bring 'faith' into the thing with a mere 'promotional' ring to it.

Grice and Strawson followed the 'joke' in their typical Brit restrained attitude. Most Brits went by Grice's and Strawon's sequel. They refuted Quine alright. And the fact that they got that thing published in the very organ of Americanism: "The Philosophical Review", gives them extra credit!