Is Empiricism Without Dogmas Even "Conceivable"?

JONES in post, THIS BLOG:

"[A]nd by the progressive elimination of dogma we can hope to progress toward a common conception of The City [of Eternal Truth]."

Hear, hear. But the question remains that perhaps Grice DID love a dogma, or an underdogma, at least.

I think Quine was just in one of his 'tasteless' days when he submitted this essay, "Two dogmas of empiricism". His use of 'dogma' is not dogmatic, but 'ridiculous'. I.e. he is using a term that only makes sense in 'religion', or 'theology', to an area where it certainly does NOT belong.

I mean, in the days of Sextus Empiricus, it possibly DID make sense to speak of the dogmatics and the sceptics. But after the institution of the dogma of Church, we can no longer use 'dogma' so freely.

I love Grice when referring to the

39

articles

of the C. of E.

-- Are they dogmas? Of course they are! And do we hold them? Of course we do. Grice is very careful here:

---- It may have to do with the fact that I like to think A. G. N. Flew (Grice's tutee) was expelled from Christ Church on having renounced to the dogmas):

Grice writes as follows.

Recall that 'assertion' (vs. 'implication') is THE major theme (as he confesses, in Foreword) to the William James lectures -- on p. 56 of WoW:

"Now, assertion presumably does
involve committing oneself"

--- the choice of word, 'commit', may have to do with another of those distasteful Quineanism, 'ontological commitment' --

"committing oneself, and while it IS
possible to commit onself to a statement"

---- A DOGMA

"which one has not identified (I could
commit myself to the CONTENTS of the
Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of
England, wihtout KNOWING what they SAY)."

----- Surely one has an idea. I suppose they include the fact that God exists? -- and that he is an Englishman?

Grice goes on:

"I do NOT think I should be properly
be regarded as havig commited myself
to the CONTENT of a policeman's statement,
merely in virtue of me having said that
what the policeman said was true."

----

So one has to be careful.

Grice IS allowing for a philosopher to commit to a statement (a dogma) without knowing what the dogma is. True, and odd -- but Gricean enough!