ABSTRACT
We have seen how, according to Quine’s argument, the distinction between a priori and empirical knowledge cannot be sustained, so that the enquiries of the philosopher cannot be insulated from the findings of scientific research. Another development of this kind is the ‘scientific realism’ of Putnam and Kripke, who claim that what we mean by our words depends on the real nature of things, as revealed by scientific investigation, and is not to be established by a priori reflection on ‘what we say’. They also claim that statements regarded as analytic may turn out, in the light of scientific discoveries, to be false.
