Adler, Mortimer. (1941). “God and the Professors” Presentation at Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. www.ditext.com/adler/gp.htmlGoogle Scholar

Alspector-Kelly, Marc. (2001). “On Quine on Carnap on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 102:1, 93–122.Google Scholar

Awodey, Steve and Klein, Carsten, eds. (2004). Carnap Brought Home. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J., ed. (1959). Logical Positivism. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar

Baghramian, M. and Marchetti, S., eds. (2018). Pragmatism and the European Traditions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bain, A. (1859). The Emotions and the Will. London: J.W. Parker & Sons.Google Scholar

Becker, Edward. (2012). The Themes of Quine’s Philosophy: Meaning, Reference, and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ben-Menahem, Y. (2006). Conventionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Menahem, Y. (2016). “The Web and the Tree: Quine and James on the Growth of Knowledge.” In Kemp and Janssen-Lauret, 59–75.Google Scholar

Benson, Arthur. (1963). “Bibliography of Rudolf Carnap.” In Schilpp, 1015–1070.Google Scholar

Bird, Graham H. (1995). “Internal and External Questions.” Erkenntnis 42:1, 41–64.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander. (2012). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Its Significance: An Essay Review of the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63:4, 859–883.Google Scholar

Blatti, Stephan and Lapointe, Sandra, eds. (2016). Ontology after Carnap. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blumberg, A. and Feigl, H.. (1931). “Logical Positivism: A New Movement in European Philosophy.” The Journal of Philosophy 28:11, 281–296.Google Scholar

Bonhert, Herbert G. (1963). “Carnap’s Theory of Definition and Analyticity.” In Schilpp, 407–430.Google Scholar

Boolos, G., Burgess, J., and Jeffrey, R., eds. (2002). Computability and Logic, 4th ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Borradori, Giovanna. (1994). The American Philosopher. Trans. Rosanna Crocitto. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Brower, R. (1959). On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1922a). Der Raum, Kant-Studien 56. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1922b). “Vom Chaos zur Wirklichkeit.” Ms. in Carnap-Nachlass RC 081-05-01, Archive of Scientific Philosophy, Hillman Library, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1923). “Über die Aufgabe der Physik und die Anwendung des Grundsatzes der Einfachstheit.” Kant-Studien 28:1/2, 90–107.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1924). “Dreidimensionalität des Raumes und Kausalität.” Annalen der Naturphilosophie und philosophischen Kritik 4:1, 105–130.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1926). Physikalische Begrifsbildung. Karlsruhe: Braun.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1927). “Eigentliche und uneingentliche Begriffe.” Philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Aussprache 1:4, 355–374.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1928a). Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1928b). Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie, Berlin: Bernary, trans. as “Pseudoproblems in Philosophy.” In The Logical Structure of the World World/ Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967, repr. Chicago: Open Court, 2003.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1928/1967). The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Trans. Rolf George. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1929). Abriß der Logistik. Mit besonderer Ber ücksichtigung der Relationstheorie und ihrer Anwendungen. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1930). “Die Mathematik als Zweig der Logik.” Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie 4:3/4, 298–340.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1932a). “Die physikalische Sprache als Unversalsprache der Wissenschaft.” Erkenntnis 2:1, 432–465. Trans. The Unity of Science, London: Kegan, Paul, Trench Teubner & Co., 1934.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1932b). “Psychologie in physikalischer Sprache.” Erkenntnis 3:1, 107–142. Trans. “Psychology in Physicalist Language.” In Ayer, 165–198.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1932c). “Über Protokollsätze.” Erkenntnis 3:1, 204–214.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1932/1959). “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through the Logical Analysis of Language.” Reprinted in Ayer, 60–81.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1932/1987). “On Protocol Sentences.” Trans. by R. Creath and R. Nollan. Noûs 21:4, 457–470.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934a). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934b). “Meaning, Assertion and Proposal.” Philosophy of Science 1:3, 359–360.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934c). “On the Character of Philosophical Problems.” Philosophy of Science 1:1, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934d). “The Task of the Logic of Science.” Trans. Hans Kaal. In McGuinness, 46–66.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1934/1937). The Logical Syntax of Language. Trans. Amethe Smeaton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1935). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1936a). “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3:4, 420–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1936b). “Von der Erkenntnistheorie zur Wissenschaftslogik.” In Actes du Congrès Internationale de Philosophie Scientifique, Paris: Herman and Cie, 36–51.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1937). “Testability and Meaning – Continued.” Philosophy of Science 4:1, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1939). “Foundations of Logic and Mathematics.” In Encyclopedia of Unified Science, eds. Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf, and Morris, Charles W., Vol. 1, No. 3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 139–213.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1946). “Remarks on Induction and Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 6:4, 590–602.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1947). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1950a). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:11, 20–40.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1950b). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1950/1956). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Reprinted in his (1956), 205–221.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1952). “Meaning Postulates.” Philosophical Studies 3:5 65–73. Reprinted as Appendix B in the second edition of Meaning and Necessity (University of Chicago Press, 1956).Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1952/1990). “Quine on Analyticity.” Written in 1952; first published in Quine and Carnap (1990), 427–432.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1955). “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages.” Philosophical Studies 6:3, 33–47.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1956). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. 2nd enlarged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1958a). “Beobachtungssprache und theoretische sprache.” Dialectica 12:3–4, 236–248. Translated and reprinted as “Observation Language and Theoretical Language.” In Hintikka, 75–85.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1958b). Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications. Toronto, Canada: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1963a). “Intellectual Autobiography.” In Schilpp, 1–89.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1963b). “Replies and Systematic Expositions.” In Schilpp, 859–1016.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1963c). “Wilfrid Sellars on Abstract Entities in Semantics.” In Schilpp, 923–927.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. (1963d). “W. V. Quine on Logical Truth.” In Schilpp, 915–922.Google Scholar

Carroll, Lewis. (1895). “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.” Mind 4:14, 278–280.Google Scholar

Carus, André. (2007a). Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought. Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carus, André. (2007b). “Carnap’s Intellectual Development.” In Friedman and Creath, 19–42.Google Scholar

Carus, André. (2016). “Carnap and Phenomenology: What happened in 1924?” in Influences on the Aufbau, ed. Damböck, Christian (Vienna: Springer), 137–162.Google Scholar

Chalmers, David, Manley, David, and Wasserman, Ryan, eds. (2009). Metametaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok. (2008). “Contingent Transcendental Arguments for Metaphysical Principles.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 63: 113–133.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cook, G. A. (2013). “Resolving Two Key Problems in Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society.” In George Herbert Mead in the 21st Century, eds. Burke, F. Thomas and Skowronski, Krzysztof Piotr. New York: Lexington Press, 95–106.Google Scholar

Costreie, Sorin, ed. (2016). Early Analytic Philosophy – New Perspectives on the Tradition. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (1990a). “Introduction.” In Quine and Carnap (1990), 1–43.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (1990b). “Quine, Carnap, and the Rejection of Intuition.” In Perspectives on Quine, eds. Barrett, Roger B. and Gibson, Roger F.. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 55–66.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (1990c). “The Unimportance of Semantics.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:2, 405–416.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (1991). “Every Dogma Has Its Day.” Erkenntnis 35:1/3, 347–389.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (1994). “Functionalist Theories of Meaning and the Defense of Analyticity.” In Salmon and Wolters, 287–304.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (2004). “Quine on the Intelligibility and Relevance of Analyticity.” In Gibson, 47–64.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (2007). “Quine’s Challenge to Carnap.” In Friedman and Creath, 316–335.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (2009). “The Gentle Strength of Tolerance: The Logical Syntax of Language and Carnap’s Philosophical Programme.” In Wagner (2009), 203–214.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (2012a). “Analyticity in the Theoretical Language.” In Creath (2012), 57–66.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard. (2012b). “Before Explication.” In Wagner (2012), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Creath, Richard, ed. (2012). Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard and Friedman, Michael, eds. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curd, Martin and Psillos, Stathis, eds. (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

David, Marian. (1996). “Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth.” Philosophical Perspectives 10, 281–296.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (1973). “Radical Interpretation.” Reprinted in The Essential Davidson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 184–195.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (1975). “Thought and Talk.” Reprinted in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, 155–170.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (1986). “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” Reprinted in The Essential Davidson, ed. Lepore, E. and Ludwig, K.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 251–265.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (1992). “The Second Person.” Reprinted in Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001a, 107–122.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (2001a). “Comments on the Karlovy Vary Papers.” In Kotatko et al., 285–308.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. (2001b). “Externalisms.” In Kotatko et al., 1–16.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald and Hintikka, Jaakko, eds. (1969). Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W.V. Quine. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Demos, Raphael. (1939). The Philosophy of Plato. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar

Demos, Raphael. (1948). “Note on Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8:3, 456–460.Google Scholar

Devitt, Michael. (2008). “Realism/Anti-Realism.” In Curd and Psillos, 256–267.Google Scholar

Devlin, William J. and Bokulich, Alisa, eds. (2015). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

De Waal, Cornelis. (2008). “A Pragmatist World View: George Herbert Mead’s Philosophy of the Act.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy, ed. Misak, Cheryl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–168.Google Scholar

Domski, Mary and Dickson, Michael Dickson, eds. (2010). Discourse on a New Method. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Dreben, Burton. (1992). “Putnam, Quine – and the Facts.” Philosophical Topics 20:1. The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam. 293–315.Google Scholar

Ebbs, Gary. (1997). Rule-Following and Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ebbs, Gary. (2009). Truth and Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ebbs, Gary. (2011). “Carnap and Quine on Logical Truth.” Mind 120:478 (April 2011), 193–237.Google Scholar

Ebbs, Gary. (2017). Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ebbs, Gary. (2019). “Carnap on Analyticity and Existence: A Clarification, Defense, and Development of Quine’s Reading of Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 7:5, 1–31. https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3876Google Scholar

Edmister, Bradley and O’Shea, Michael. (1994). “W.V. Quine: Perspective on Logic, Science, and Philosophy.” Interview. Reprinted in Quine (2008b), 43–56.Google Scholar

Eklund, Matti. (2009). “Carnap and Ontological Pluralism.” In Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman, 130–156.Google Scholar

Eklund, Matti. (2013). “Carnap’s Metaontology.” Noûs 47:2, 229–249.Google Scholar

Enderton, Herbert. (1972). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Faris, Ellsworth. (1936). “Review of Mind, Self, and Society.” American Journal of Sociology 41:6, 809–813.Google Scholar

Feigl, Herbert. (1950). “The Mind-Body Problem in the Development of Logical Empiricism.” Reprinted in Feigl, Inquiries and Provocations, ed. Cohen, R. S.. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981, 286–301.Google Scholar

Feigl, H. (1975). “Homage to Rudolf Carnap.” In Hintikka, xiii–xvii.Google Scholar

Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover, eds. (1962). Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Vol. 3. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Floyd, Juliet and Shieh, Sanford, eds. (2001). Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth-Century Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry and Lepore, Ernest. (1992). Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Franco, Paul. (2020). “Hans Reichenbach’s and C. I. Lewis’s Kantian Philosophies of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 80: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, Philipp. (1963). “The Pragmatic Components in Carnap’s ‘Elimination of Metaphysics.’” In Schilpp, 159–164.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (1987). “Carnap’s Aufbau Reconsidered.” Reprinted in Friedman (1999), 89–113.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (1992). “Epistemology in the Aufbau.” Reprinted with postscript in Friedman (1999), 114–164.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (2003). “Kuhn and Logical Empiricism.” In Nickles, 19–44.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (2007). “The Aufbau and the Rejection of Metaphysics.” In Creath and Friedman, 129–153.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (2010). “Synthetic History Reconsidered.” In Domski and Dickson, 573–813.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. (2012). “Kuhn and Philosophy.” Modern Intellectual History 9:1, 77–88.Google Scholar

Frost-Arnold, Greg. (2011). “Quine’s Evolution from ‘Carnap’s Disciple’ to the Author of ‘Two Dogmas’.” HOPOS: Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1:2, 291–316.Google Scholar

Frost-Arnold, Greg. (2013). Carnap, Tarski, and Quine at Harvard: Conversations on Logic, Mathematics, and Science. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

George, Alexander. (2000). “On Washing the Fur without Wetting It: Quine, Carnap, and Analyticity.” Mind, New Series, 109:433, 1–24.Google Scholar

Gibson, Roger F., ed. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Quine. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Glock, Hans-Johann. (2003). Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. and Strawson, P. F.. (1956). “In Defense of a Dogma.” The Philosophical Review 65:2, 141–158.Google Scholar

Gupta, Anil. (2006). Empiricism and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gustafsson, Martin. (2014). “Quine’s Conception of Explication – and Why It Isn’t Carnap’s.” In Harman and Lepore (2014), 508–525.Google Scholar

Hacker, P. M. S. (1996). Wittgenstein’s Place in Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hahn, L. E. and Schilpp, P. A., eds. (1986). The Philosophy of W.V. Quine. La Salle, Il: Open Court.Google Scholar

Hahn, L. E. and Schilpp, P. A., eds. (1998). The Philosophy of W.V. Quine. Expanded ed. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Hardcastle, Gary and Richardson, Alan, eds. (2003). Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Harman, Gilbert and Lepore, Ernie, eds. (2014). A Companion to W.V.O. Quine. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heidelberger, Michael. (2003). “The Mind-Body Problem in the Origin of Logical Empiricism: Herbert Feigl and Psychophysical Parallelism.” In Logical Empiricism. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Parrini, Paolo, Salmon, Wesley, and Salmon, Merrilee. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 233–262.Google Scholar

Hempel, Carl G. (1950). “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Revue international de philosophie 41:11, 41–63.Google Scholar

Hempel, Carl G. (1951). “The Concept of Cognitive Significance: A Reconsideration.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 80:1, 61–77.Google Scholar

Hilbert, David. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Hillier, Sam. (2010). “Analyticity and Language Engineering: Carnap’s Logical Syntax.” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6:2, 25–46.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko, ed. (1975). Rudolf Carnap: Logical Empiricist. Synthese Library 73. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Hookway, Christopher. (2008). “Pragmatism and the Given: C. I. Lewis, Quine, and Peirce.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy, ed. Misak, Cheryl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 269–289.Google Scholar

Horwich, Paul, ed. (1993). World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Howard, Don. (2003). “Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North American Philosophy of Science.” In Hardcastle and Richardson, 25–93.Google Scholar

Howard, Don. (2018). “Quine, Dewey, and the Pragmatist Tradition in American Philosophy of Science.” Lecture at HOPOS conference Groningen, Holland.Google Scholar

Huebner, Daniel. (2012). “The Construction of Mind, Self, and Society: The Social Process Behind G. H. Mead’s Social Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 48:2, 134–153.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2001). “‘The Defensible Province of Philosophy’: Quine’s 1934 Lectures on Carnap.” In Floyd and Shieh, 257–276.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2004). “Quine on Reference and Ontology.” In Gibson, 115–150.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2007). Quine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2013). “Quine and the Aufbau: The Possibility of Objective Knowledge.” In Reck, 78–92.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2014a). “Quine’s Naturalism Revisited.” In Harman and Lepore, 148–62.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2014b). “Significance in Quine.” Grazer Philosophische Studies 89, 113–133.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (2021). “Carnap and Quine on Analyticity: The Nature of the Disagreement.” Noûs 55:2, 445–462.Google Scholar

Hylton, Peter. (forthcoming). “Moorean Propositions and Russellian Confusion.” In Early Analytic Philosophy: Origins and Transformations, ed. James Conant and Gilad Nir. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jacquette, Dale. (2003). Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism: Critical and Historical Readings on the Psychological Turn in Philosophy. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

James, William. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

James, William. (1907/1909/1955). Pragmatism and Four Essays from The Meaning of Truth. New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar

James, William. (1897/1956). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Järvilehto, Lauri. (2009). “The Pragmatic A Priori of C. I. Lewis.” Cognitio-Estudos 6:2, 96–102.Google Scholar

Joas, Hans. (1985). G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-Examination of His Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kemp, Gary. (2014). “Quine’s Relationship with Analytic Philosophy.” In Harman and Lepore, 69–88.Google Scholar

Kemp, Gary. (2016). “Underdetermination, Realism, and Transcendental Metaphysics in Quine.” In Kemp and Janssen-Lauret, 168–188.Google Scholar

Kemp, Gary and Janssen-Lauret, Frederique, eds. (2016). Quine and His Place in History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kim, Jaegwon. (2003). “Logical Positivism and the Mind-Body Problem.” In Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Ed. Parrini, P., Salmon, M., and Salmon, W.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klagge, J. and Nordmann, A., eds. (1993). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophical Occasions. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Klein, Alexander. (2008). “Divide Et Impera! William James’s Pragmatist Tradition in the Philosophy of Science.” Philosophical Topics 36:1, 129–166.Google Scholar

Kotatko, P., Pagin, P., and Segal, G., eds. (2001). Interpreting Davidson. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul. (1975). “Outline of a Theory of Truth.” Journal of Philosophy 72:19, 690–716.Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). “Reflections on My Critics.” In Lakatos and Musgrave, 231–278.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. (1990). “The Road Since Structure.” Reprinted in his (2000), 90–104.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. (1993). “Afterwards.” In Horwich, 311–341.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. (2000). The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Ed. Conant, James and Haugel, John. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leonardi, Paolo and Santambrogio, Marco, eds. (1995). On Quine: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lepore, Ernest and Ludwig, Kirk. (2005). Davidson: Meaning, Truth, Language and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. I. (1929). Mind and the World-Order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Lewis, David. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Levine, James. (2009). “From Moore to Peano to Watson: The Mathematical Roots of Russell’s Naturalism and Behaviorism.” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 4, 1–126.Google Scholar

Levine, James. (2016). “The Place of Vagueness in Russell’s Philosophical Development.” In Costreie, 161–212.Google Scholar

Limbeck-Lilienau, Christoph. (2012) “Carnap’s Encounter with Pragmatism.” In Creath (2012), 89–112.Google Scholar

Livingston, Paul. (2008). Philosophy and the Vision of Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

MacBride, Fraser. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap and David Lewis on Metaphysics: A Question of Historical Ancestry.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 9:1, 1–31.Google Scholar

Manninen, Juha. (2002). “Wie entstand der Physikalismus?” Nachrichten. Forschungsstelle und Dokumentationszentrum für Österreichische Philosophie, Graz 10, 22–52.Google Scholar

Manninen, Juha. (2003). “Towards a Physicalistic Attitude.” In The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism. Re-evaluation and Future Perspectives. Ed. Stadler, F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 133–150.Google Scholar

Martin, R. M. (1952). “On ‘Analytic’,” Philosophical Studies 3(3): 42–47.Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. (1978). “Indeterminacy, Inscrutability, and Ontological Relativity.” American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph 12, 43–55.Google Scholar

Massimi, Michela. (2015). “Walking the Line: Kuhn Between Realism and Relativism.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 135–152.Google Scholar

Maxwell, Grover. (1962). “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities.” In Feigl and Maxwell, 3–15.Google Scholar

McGuinness, Brian, ed. (1987). Unified Science: The Vienna Circle Monographs Series Originally. Ed. Neurath, Otto. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Ed. Morris, Charles. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1964). Selected Writings. Ed. Reck, Andrew. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Mills, Charles W. (2007). “White Ignorance.” In Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Ed. Sullivan, Shannon and Tuana, Nancy. New York: Suny Press, 13–38.Google Scholar

Misak, Cheryl. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Moore, G. E. (1993). “Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930–33.” In Klagge and Nordmann, 46–114.Google Scholar

Mormann, Thomas. (2007). “Carnap’s Logical Empiricism, Values, and American Pragmatism.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38:1, 127–146.Google Scholar

Mormann, Thomas. (2010). “History of Philosophy of Science As Philosophy of Science by Other Means?” In Stadler, 29–40.Google Scholar

Mormann, Thomas. (2012a). “A Place for Pragmatism in the Dynamics of Reason?” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43, 27–37.Google Scholar

Mormann, Thomas. (2012b). “Toward a Theory of the Pragmatic A Priori.” In Creath, 113–132.Google Scholar

Mormann, Thomas. (2016). “Morris’ Pariser Programm einer wissenschaftlichen Philosophie.” In Wissenschaft und Praxis. Ed. Bonnet, Christian and Nemeth, Elisabeth. Vienna: Springer, 73–88.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1925). Symbolism and Reality: A Study in the Nature of Mind. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1934). “Introduction.” In Mead, v–xxxv.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1936). “The Concept of Meaning in Pragmatism and Logical Positivism.” Actes du huitieme congres intemational de philosophie. 2–7 September, Prague, 130–138.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1937). Logical Positivism, Pragmatism, and Scientific Empiricism. Paris: Hermann et Cie.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1937/1979). Logical Positivism, Pragmatism, and Scientific Empiricism. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, reprint of 1937 Hermann edition.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 1, 2, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1938. Reprinted in Neurath et al. (1969), 78–137.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1942). “Empiricism, Religion, and Democracy.” In Science, Philosophy, and Religion: Second Symposium. Ed. Bryson, Lyman and Finkelstein, Louis. New York: Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Society, 213–241.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1946). Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. (1963). “Pragmatism and Logical Empiricism.” In Schilpp, 87–98.Google Scholar

Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1981). Pragmatism: Its Sources and Prospects. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Murphey, Murray. (2012). The Development of Quine’s Philosophy. Boston: Springer Science.Google Scholar

Neurath, Otto. (1910). “Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften.” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 34, 37–67. Trans. “On the Theory of Social Science” in Neurath, Economic Writings: Selections 1904–1945 (ed. by T. Uebel and R. S. Cohen), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, 265–291.Google Scholar

Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1928). “Rezension: R. Carnap, Der Logische Aufbau der Welt und Scheinprobleme der Philosophie.” Der Kampf 21, 624–626. Reprinted in Neurath, Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften (ed. by R. Haller and H. Rutte), Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1981, 295–297.Google Scholar

Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1931). “Physikalismus.” Scientia 50, 297–303. Trans. “Physicalism” in Neurath (1983), 52–57.Google Scholar

Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1932). “Protokollsätze.” Erkenntnis 3:1, 204–214. Trans. “Protocol Sentences” in Ayer 1959, 199–208, and “Protocol Statements” in Neurath (1983), 91–99.Google Scholar

Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf, and Morris, Charles, eds. (1969). Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol 1, Nos 1–10. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Nickles, Thomas, ed. (2003). Thomas Kuhn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

O’Shea, James. (2018). “The Analytic Pragmatist Conception of the A Priori: C. I. Lewis and Wilfrid Sellars.” In Baghramian and Marchetti, 203–227.Google Scholar

Orenstein, Alex and Kotatko, Petr, eds. (2000). Knowledge, Language and Logic: Questions for Quine. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Pearson, James. (2011). “Distinguishing W.V. Quine and Donald Davidson.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 1:1, 1–22.Google Scholar

Pearson, James. (2017). “Taking Care with Quine’s ‘Don’t-Cares.’” The Monist 100:2, 266–287.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1868). “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:3, 140–157.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1877/1966). “The Fixation of Belief.” In Selected Writings. Ed. Wiener, P. P.. New York: Dover, 91–112.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1878/1966) “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” In Selected Writings. Ed. Wiener, P. P.. New York: Dover, 113–136.Google Scholar

Pincock, Christopher. (2005). “A Reserved Reading of Carnap’s Aufbau.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86:4, 518–543.Google Scholar

Planck, Max. (1950). Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Trans. Frank Gaynor. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar

Price, Huw. (2007). “Quining Naturalism.” Journal of Philosophy 104:8, 375–402.Google Scholar

Price, Huw. (2009). “Metaphysics after Carnap.” Reprinted in Price (2011), 280–303.Google Scholar

Price, Huw. (2011). Naturalism Without Mirrors. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Psillos, Stathis and Curd, Martin, eds. (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. (1962). “The Analytic and the Synthetic.” Reprinted in his (1975), 33–69.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. (1975). Mind, Language, and Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. (1976). “Realism and Reason.” Reprinted in his (1978), 123–138.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1932). “The Logic of Sequences. A Generalization of Principia Mathematica.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1934). “Lectures on Carnap.” In Quine and Carnap (1990), 47–103.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1935). “Review of Logische Syntax der Sprache by Rudolf Carnap.” Philosophical Review 44:4, 394–397.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1936). “Truth by Convention.” Reprinted in Quine (1976), 70–99.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1937). “Is Logic a Matter of Words?” (unpublished manuscript), abstract in Journal of Philosophy 34:1937, 674.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1939). “Designation and Existence.” The Journal of Philosophy 36:26, 701–709.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1940). Mathematical Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1943). “Notes on Existence and Necessity.” Journal of Philosophy 40:5, 113–127.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1948a). “On What There Is.” The Review of Metaphysics 2:5, 21–38.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1948b). “On What There Is.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 1–19.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1949). “Animadversions on the Notion of Meaning.” In Quine (2008a), 152–156.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1950). Methods of Logic. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1950/1980). “Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 65–79.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951a). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Reprinted in Quine (1976), 203–211.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951b). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 2:5, 65–72.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951c). “The Present State of Empiricism.” Appendix 6 to Verhaegh (2018). Transcription by S. Verhaegh.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951d). “The Problem of Meaning in Linguistics.” In Quine (1980), 47–64.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951e). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60:1, 20–43.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1951f). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 20–46.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1953a). “Meaning and Existential Inference.” In Quine (1980), 160–167.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1953b). “Notes on the Theory of Reference.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 130–138.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1957). “The Scope and Language of Science.” Reprinted in his (1976), 228–245.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1955). “Posits and Reality.” Reprinted in his (1976), 246–254.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1958). “Le mythe de la signification.” In La Philosophie Analytique. Ed. Cahiers de Royaumont, 4. Paris: Minuit, 1962, 139–169.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1959). “Meaning and Translation.” In Brower, 148–172.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1963a). “Carnap and Logical Truth.” In Schilpp, 385–406.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1963b). “Necessary Truth.” Reprinted in Quine (1976), 68–76.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969a). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Quine (1969a), 69–90.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969b). “Natural Kinds.” In Quine (1969a), 114–138.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969c). “Ontological Relativity.” In Quine (1969d), 26–68.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969d). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969e). “Replies.” In Davidson and Hintikka, 292–352.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1969f). “Reply to Chomsky.” In Davidson and Hintikka, 302–311.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1970a). “Homage to Carnap.” Reprinted in Quine (1976), 40–43.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1970b). “On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 209–214.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1970c). “On the Reasons for the Indeterminacy of Translation.” The Journal of Philosophy 67:16, 178–183.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1970d). Philosophy of Logic. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1974a). Roots of Reference. LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publications.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1974b). “Skinner’s Retirement Party.” In Føllesdal and Quine (2008b), 291–292.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1975). “The Pragmatists’ Place in Empiricism.” In Mulvaney and Zeltner, 21–39.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1976). The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. Rev. and enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1979). “Cognitive Meaning.” In Quine (2008a), 288–302.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1980). From a Logical Point of View: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays. 2nd rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1981a) “Five Milestones of Empiricism.” In Quine (1981c), 67–72.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1981b). “Responding to Schuldenfrei.” In Quine (1981c), 184–186.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1981c). Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1981d). “Things and Their Place in Theories.” In Quine (1981c), 1–23.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1984). “Relativism and Absolutism.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 319–322.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1985). The Time of My Life: An Autobiography. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1986a). “Autobiography.” In Hahn and Schilpp, 3–46.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1986b). Philosophy of Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1987). “Indeterminacy of Translation Again.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 341–346.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1989). Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1990a). “Comment on Creath.” In Barrett and Gibson, 67.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1990b). “Comments.” In Barrett and Gibson.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1990c). Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1990d). “Three Indeterminacies.” In Barrett and Gibson, 1–16.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1991). “Two Dogmas in Retrospect.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 390–400.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1992a). Pursuit of Truth. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1992b). “Structure and Nature.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 401–406.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1994a). “Comment.” Reprinted as “Comments on Neil Tennant’s ‘Carnap and Quine’” in Dagfinn Follesdal and Douglas B. Quine (2008b), 216–222.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1994b). “Exchange between Donald Davidson and W. V. Quine Following Davidson’s Lecture.” In his (2008b), 152–156.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1994c). “Indeterminacy Without Tears.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 447–448.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1995a). From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1995b). “Reactions.” In Leonardi and Santambrogio, 347–361.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (2000). “Responses.” In Orenstein and Kotatko, 407–430.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (2008a). Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Ed. Føllesdal, Dagfinn and Quine, Douglas B.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (2008b). Quine in Dialogue. Ed. Føllesdal, Dagfinn and Quine, Douglas B.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. and Carnap, Rudolf. (1990). Dear Carnap, Dear Van. Ed. Creath, Richard. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. and Carnap, Rudolf. Correspondence. Quine Archive, Houghton Library, MS 2587, item 197, box 7.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. and Morris, Charles. Correspondence. Quine Archive, Houghton Library, MS 2587 item 741, box 27; item 547, box 20.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. and Ullian, J. S.. (1978). The Web of Belief, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar

Rawling, Piers and Philip and Wilson, eds. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Reck, Erich, ed. (2013). The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Reisch, George. (1991). “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Positivism?” Philosophy of Science 58:2, 264–277.Google Scholar

Reck, Erich, ed. (2005). How The Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rhees, Rush. (1970). Discussions of Wittgenstein. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan. (1994). “Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 68: 67–83.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan. (1997). “Two Dogmas about Logical Empiricism: Carnap and Quine on Logic, Epistemology, and Empiricism.” Philosophical Topics 25:2, 145–168.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan. (2003). “Logical Empiricism, American Pragmatism, and the Fate of Scientific Philosophy in North America.” In Hardcastle and Richardson, 1–24.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan. (2007). “That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Empiricism: Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science.” In Richardson and Uebel, 346–370.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan and Uebel, Thomas, eds. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Thomas. (1982). “Rationality, Translation, and Epistemology Naturalized.” Journal of Philosophy 79:3, 117–136.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Thomas. (2004). “Frege, Carnap, and Quine: Continuities, and Discontinuities.” In Awodey and Klein, 181–202.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Thomas. (2010). “Quine’s Objection and Carnap’s Aufbau.” In Domski and Dickson, 313–331.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1997). “Introduction.” In Sellars, iii–vi.Google Scholar

Rosen, Gideon. (2014). “Quine and the Revival of Metaphysics.” In Harman and Lepore, 552–70.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (1978). “Paradox and Indeterminacy.” Journal of Philosophy 75:7, 347–367.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (1984). “On Missing Neurath’s Boat.” Synthese 61:2, 205–231.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (1999). “The Epistemology of ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’” Dialectica 53:2, 87–109.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2003). “Why There is Nothing Rather than Something: Quine on Behaviorism, Meaning, and Indeterminacy.” In Jacquette, 263–287.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2006). “Naturalism Without Fears.” In Turner and Risjord, 684–708.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2008). “Epistemology of Science after Quine.” In Psillos and Curd, 3–14.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2019). “Quine.” In Rawling and Wilson, 104–121.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2020). The Philosophical Structure of Historical Explanation. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. (1903/1937). The Principles of Mathematics, 2nd ed. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. (1912/1999). The Problems of Philosophy. Minneola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. (1914/1993). Our Knowledge of the External World As a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ryckman, Thomas. (2007). “Carnap and Husserl.” In Friedman and Creath, 81–105.Google Scholar

Sacks, Mark. (2000). Objectivity and Insight. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. and Wolters, G., eds. (1994). Language, Logic, and the Structure of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Schilpp, P. A., ed. (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, The Library of Living Philosophers. La Salle, IL.: Open Court.Google Scholar

Schlauch, Margaret. (1947). “The Cult of the Proper Word.” New Masses 63:3, 15–18.Google Scholar

Sellars, Wilfrid. (1956). “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” In The Foundations of Science and the Concept of Psychology and Psychoanalysis (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1). Ed. Feigl, H. and Scriven, M.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 253–329. Reprinted as Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (ed. R. Brandom), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Sharrock, Wes and Read, Rupert. (2002). Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven. (2015). “Kuhn’s Structure: A Moment in Modern Naturalism.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 11–22.Google Scholar

Sheldon, William. (1954). Atlas of Men. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Sinclair, Robert. (2012). “Quine and Conceptual Pragmatism.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 48:3, 335–355.Google Scholar

Sinclair, Robert. (2016). “On Quine’s Debt to Pragmatism: C. I. Lewis and the Pragmatic A Priori.” In Quine and His Place in History, ed. Kemp, G. and Janssen-Lauret, F.. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 76–99.Google Scholar

Smart, J.C.C. (1969). “Quine’s Philosophy of Science.” In Davidson and Hintikka, 3–13.Google Scholar

Soames, Scott. (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Soames, Scott. (2009). “Ontology, Analyticity, and Meaning: The Quine–Carnap Dispute.” In Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman, 424–443.Google Scholar

Stadler, Friedrich, ed. (2010). The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Stein, Howard. (1992). “Was Carnap Entirely Wrong, After All?” Synthese 93:½, 275–295.Google Scholar

Stich, Stephen and Tobia, Kevin. (2018). “Intuition and Its Critics.” In Stuart, Fehige, and Brown, 369–384.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1950). “On Referring.” Mind 59:235, 320–344Google Scholar

Stuart, Michael T., Fehige, Yiftach, and Brown, James Robert, eds. (2017). The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Stump, David. (2015). “Alternative Conceptions of the A Priori: Cassirer, Lewis, and Pap.” In his From Conceptual Change and the Philosophy of Science: Alternative Interpretations of the A Priori. New York: Routledge, 90–118.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred. (1936). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages.” In Tarski (1983), 152–277.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred. (1944). “The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4:3, 341–376.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred. (1983). Logic, Semantics, Meta-Mathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, 2nd ed., trans. J. H. Woodger, ed. Corcoran, John. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Tennant, Neil. (1994). “Carnap and Quine.” In Salmon and Wolters, 315–344Google Scholar

Thomasson, Amie. (2016). “Carnap and the Prospects for Easy Ontology.” In Ontology after Carnap, ed. Blatti, Stephan and Lapointe, Sandra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 122–144.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan. (2015). “Reconsidering the Carnap–Kuhn Connection.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 51–70.Google Scholar

Turner, Stephen and Risjord, Mark, eds. (2006). Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2001). “Carnap and Neurath in Exile: Can Their Disputes Be Resolved?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15:2, 211–220.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2004). “Carnap, the Left Vienna Circle, and Neopositivist Antimetaphysics.” In Awodey and Klein, 247–277.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2007a). Empiricism at the Crossroads: The Vienna Circle’s Protocol Sentence Debate. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2007b). “Carnap and the Vienna Circle: Rational Restructionism Refined.” In Friedman and Creath, 129–152.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2010). “Some Remarks on Current History of Analytical Philosophy of Science.” In Stadler (2010), 13–28.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2013). “Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the Bipartite Metatheory Conception.” Erkenntnis 78:3, 523–546.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2014). “Carnap’s Aufbau and Physicalism: What does the ‘Mutual Reducibility’ of Psychological and Physical Objects Amount to?” In European Philosophy of Science – Philosophy of Science in Europe and the Viennese Heritage. Ed. Galavotti, M. C., Nemeth, E., and Stadler, F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 45–56.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2016). “Neurath’s Influence on Carnap’s Aufbau.” In Influences on the Aufbau, ed. Damböck, C., Cham: Springer, 51–76.Google Scholar

Uebel, Thomas. (2021). “Rejecting the Given: Neurath and Carnap on Methodological Solipsism.” HOPOS 11:2.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, Bas. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2017). “Boarding Neurath’s Boat: The Early Development of Quine’s Naturalism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 55:2, 317–342.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2018). Working From Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2019a). “The Behaviorisms of Skinner and Quine: Genesis, Development, and Mutual Influence.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 57:4, 707–730.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2019b). “Sign and Object: Quine’s Forgotten Book Project.” Synthese 196:12, 5038–5060.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2020a). “The American Reception of Logical Positivism: First Encounters (1929–1932).” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 10:1, 106–142.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2020b). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach, and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part I: Rudolf Carnap.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8:11, 1–23.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, Sander. (2020c). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach, and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part II: Hans Reichenbach.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8:11, 24–47.Google Scholar

Von Foerster, Heinz and Poerksen, Bernhard. (2002). Understanding Systems: Conversations on Epistemology and Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Wagner, Pierre, ed. (2009). Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wagner, Pierre, ed. (2012). Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

White, Morton. (1950). “The Analytic and the Synthetic: an Untenable Dualism.” In John Dewey: Philosophy of Science and Freedom. Ed. Hook, Sidney. New York: The Dial Press, 316–330.Google Scholar

White, Morton. (1999). A Philosopher’s Story. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

Williamson, Timothy. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Williamson, Timothy. (2014). “How Did We Get Here from There? The Transformation of Analytic Philosophy.” Belgrade Philosophical Annual 27, 7–37.Google Scholar

Williamson, Timothy. (2015). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1922/1990). Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Trans. C. K. Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1958). Philosophical Investigations, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1969a). The Blue and Brown Books, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1969b). On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1974). Philosophical Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1975). Philosophical Remarks. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1977). Remarks on Colour. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1979). Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1932–1935. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1998). Culture and Value, revised ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yablo, Stephen. (1998). “Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary Volume 72: 229–261.Google Scholar

Zilsel, Edgar. (1932). “Bemerkungen zur Wissenschaftslogik.” Erkenntnis 3, 143–161.Google Scholar