[Guille]

Quine's books: Two Dogmas of Empiricism and Word and Object give his most influential thought: the critique to the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths.

An Analytic proposition is one such that its truth can be determined (solely) through analysis of its meaning. It is neccesarlly true, because it's negation would be self.-contradictory, and it is consistent by itself. An example is "all white cats are white" it's negation would be wrong and it is self-referential by definition.

A Synthetic proposition is one that it's truthness or falisity must be derived from the facts of reality. It is not true in itself, or self-referential. For example "the book is on the table" is not neccesarilly true, it depends on weather it is real the fact that the book is on the table.

Quine's rejection of this distinction is that Analytic truths although they are true by definition, it is incoherent that they are true by definition. Also, the fact that analytic truths can be simply inductive arguments takes him to the idea that analytical statements are not neccesarilly true, for they must be based on the collateral information of experience. For example, "there have been black dogs" is an analytic truth, as well as inductive, and is taken from the collateral information that one has experienced black dogs.

Do you agree or disagree with the distinction between Synthetic or Analytic truths? Are there truths that don't enter any of these two groups? is it logical to think that all truths must come from reality?... Any other comment?