As described in the passage, Quine’s specific argument against classical empiricism would be most strengthened if he did which of the following?
(A) Provided evidence that many observations are actually hallucinations.
(B) Explained why new observations often invalidate preexisting generalizations.
(C) Challenged the mechanism by which specific generalizations are derived from collections
of particular observations.
(D) Mentioned other critics of classical empiricism and the substance of their approaches.
(E) Gave an example of a specific generalization that has not been invalidated despite a contrary observation
Here’s the passage:
(E) is the correct answer, and I can understand why it could be. But how does one eliminate (B)?
Quine claims that classical empiricism (CE) is limited because adherents of it have to totally discard a generalisation the moment they get any contradictory observation. His new idea solves this, by allowing existing generalisations and observations be modified so no contradictions occur.
If so, wouldn’t giving reasons as to why new observations have invalidated existing generalisations a lot strengthen Quine’s attack on CE?
And here’s me trying to explain it in my head:
- “Man, the problem with CE is that no generalisation last long, because the moment you get an observation that contradicts it, it’s gone.”
- “And generalisations get invalidated A LOT by new observations, because… blah blah blah… So CE is terrible.”