Abstract

In "Meaning, Truth and Evidence" (1990), Davidson took issue on Quine's empiricist theory of meaning and knowledge. The point at issue was the concept of 'stimulus meaning' which Quine defined in physiological terms. Davidson argued that physiology should not matter much either in the theory of meaning or in epistemology. This criticism was pertinent to Quine's theory of meaning (Quine eventually abandoned the concept of 'stimulus meaning' itself). But, as I shall argue, it had little effect on Quine's epistemology: though it prompted minor changes on Quine's part, Quine's physiological bent in epistemology was retained, and justifiably, in the face of Davidson's criticism.