Dogmas and Underdogmas

Jones in post to this blog:

"In the early Carnap this looks like a dogmatic minimalism, in the later Carnap we get a withdrawal from prescribing the boundaries of philosophy, but we still have a prejudicial attitude towards all that falls outside the analytic/synthetic classification as not just lacking empirical content but even lacking a truth value."

Hear, hear, and hear Grandy on 'underdogma' in WoW, cited by Grice.

----

I recall when Kramer was discussing Jones's survey of Dawkins, in Jones's site. When I checked the link, I think I recall Jones saying, very aptly, that this or that is just 'synthetic', and thus not 'philosophical'.

I hold it close to my heart that a philosopher cannot JUST utter something 'synthetic'. It's unprofessional!


---

So, Carnap's dogma there is a good underdogma, I would think. I.e. if we allow philosophers to utter 'synhetic' claims, where does that leave science?

---- So, the minimal role of the philosopher as concerned with the analytic seems very apt. Of course we have no right to call Quine an analytic philosopher. He wasn't even a synthetic philosopher. And when I'm in one of those moods, I don't even want to call him a 'philosopher'!