Abstract

In this note I examine the criticism of Quine's "Two Dogmas" given by Crispin Wright in his "Inventing Logical Necessity". Wright claims, in opposition to Quine, that certain metalogical statements are indeed immune to revision. Without committing myself to Quine's position, I show that Wright's argument is flawed since (1) he overlooks the indispensable role of intuitive reasoning in metalogic, and (2) even if the acceptance of a metalogical statement is presupposed in the test of a certain theory, it does not follow that the very same metalogical statement must be presupposed whenever we put a theory into empirical test.