Customer Reviews

The Web of Belief

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Williard V. Quine (1908-2000), a brilliant mathematician and philosopher from Akron, Ohio and Joseph S. Ullian (1930-), currently a professor of philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, composed The Web of Belief for "freshmen courses in English" (p. v) in 1970. The small book contains 145 pages divided into ten chapters that look promising but quickly become intimidating.

The Web of Belief is worth one's time and effort, because The Web of Belief introduces the reader to the goodness of "science" ("Intro.", p. 3), encourages us to weed-out our "conflicting beliefs" (Ch. 2, p. 14), teaches us to appreciate our intuitions since it is "impossible" to prove "every reasonable belief" (Ch. 7, p. 92), and encourages us to find "a common ground of beliefs" when arguing with a person in order to "minimize effort for ourselves" (Ch. 10, p. 129). I particularly welcome this last bit of advice.

Chapter Seven, "Hypothesis", is the goal toward which the first six chapters are headed and is definately worth the price of the book. It is here that Quine and Ullian distinguish an "Observation" and the "direct evidence of the senses" (p. 21) from a "Hypothesis" which is an "enlightened guess" (p. 65), "a plausible story" (p. 66). Chapter Eight, "Confirmation and Refutation", completes chapter seven and discusses how a plausible story and a hypothesis becomes a true "law" of science (p. 98).

For a person who agrees that it is good to think clearly, carefully and independently and who wishes to take the mind seriously, I strongly recommend this book as well as anything written by Aristotle.

Considering the many years since this was first written as "a compact introduction to the study of rational belief" it has wonderfully survived as a gem of a little book. Philosophy is a difficult subject to start. If a course starts with ancient philosophy, besides the challenge of critical thinking, there are cultural issues, translation issues, and the matter of explaining contemporary relevance. All of those issues are avoided with this book. It is a clear description of terms necessary for rational thought studiously written by a master logician for beginning students. It is also a wonderful introduction to Quine.

This book points to the underpinnings of rational thought and scientific method. There is no such thing as THE scientific method. But all versions of the scientific method have certain basic elements such as hypothesis, evidence, testing of theory and so forth. This book explains all this and from the position of philosophy that invented the scientific method. The authors show the logic behind rational thought which all adds up to eminent common sense. After reading this book many years ago, it became clear to me how Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. The theory is an explanation of why the Miachelson-Morley experiment failed to find the ether. This book makes a lot of sense. Its a bit pricey, but if you like the philosophy behind rational thinking and scientific method, you might consider the purchase of this book.

Approached as a textbook, this work by Quine and that other guy stands out as an unusual piece that does just enough to interest the reader in the field, without being tedious and overwhelming.
The book is lucidly written, in relatively short and simple sentences. It is extremely well-organized, etc. Since philosophy is a difficult and complex subject, the degree of clarity that is achieved in the text is impressive and even aesthetically pleasing.
One can make sense out of the book if one treats it as outlining a particular point of view: that of the thinker who sees her intellectual habits as further developments of thought processes and methods that emerge as one tries to make sense out of all facets of life. This willingness to promote philosophy--and science--as fields that contribute to one's ability to make sense out of one's situation shows up, in however subdued a fashion, in the authors' willingness to present philosophy as something that is actively carried out in the real world, about the real world, with members of the real world. The subject matter is not reduced to abstractions.
Overall, worth reading as it will orientate everyone to contemporary philosophy.

The title of this book is a figurative expression of one of the fundamental theses of the contemporary pragmatist philosophy of language - the thesis of the contextually relativized determination of meaning. An example is any ordinary unilanguage dictionary, which displays our most tenaciously held beliefs with each term defined in relation to other terms that are as it were nodes in the "web" that constitutes the dictionary. But beyond the dictionary we also hold many additional beliefs, such as in current school textbooks, which make our semantics much richer and more complex than the simple dictionary meaning. More generally all of our shared and conventional beliefs taken together are in effect a dictionary that glues our language together.

Quine attacked the positivists, who maintained that observation language is not determined contextually - that observation terms have independent, invariant and special meanings by which they are distinguished from theory language. In the chapter titled "Observation" he argues that what qualifies a sentence as observational is not the lack of theoretical terms, but rather is that the sentence taken as a whole commands assent consistently or dissent consistently when the same global sensory stimulation is repeated. This behavioral characterization enabled Quine to avoid referencing semantics in his characterization of observation language, and thereby to separate his view from the positivists, who defined observation language by its distinctive semantics.

But in attempting also to avoid a cultural relativist view of truth that he erroneously thought he found in Russell Hanson's philosophy of observation, Quine reverted to the semantics of observation with the very positivist objective of keeping the semantics of observation uncontaminated by theory language. In this effort Quine failed to recognize that a pragmatically defined relativistic semantics for observational description is necessary to avoid a relativistic view of truth. Contextually relativized semantics implies that the same statement cannot be both true and false due to contradictory contexts, because the contradictory contexts produce partial equivocation, such that it is not exactly the same statement in both contexts. Google my book titled History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science at my web site philsci with free downloads by chapter, and see my other reviews of Quine's books. Also see my ebook Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.

Thomas J. Hickey

I purchased this book for my Logic & Critical Thinking class. It's required reading but probably the most interested required reading I've ever been assigned.
For those who do not possess a large vocabulary, a dictionary might come in handy. Also, some of the examples refer to science--physics in particular.
Great book, I've recommended it to others for leisure reading.

A very enjoyable, introductory philosophy text. It is a very readable and easy introduction to Quine's thought.

I highly recommend it to the thoughtful reader who is interested in contemporary philosophy.

I've read this book in my philosophy class and found it very educating. The author give good argument to support points. However, I found some chapter extremely hard to read, the author would move from one point to the next without making any connections between them.
Major disappointment of this book: didn't see the words "she" or "her" once, only "he" that and "him" this. Very anti-feminine!

If I could possibly rate this book with negative stars - I would have. The book could and should have only 10 pages in it - both authors discuss the points they are trying to make to a very, very slow death. Do not buy this book unless you need it for a college course.

The book is quite basic and introductory. I think it would be useful to many people who want to start thinking philosophically. However, it is boring. Yet, I do like the term "web of belief" a lot. Unfortunately, though, they do not expound upon it much in that book.