No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilib… - Willard Van Orman Quine

Our argument is not flatly circular, but something like it. It has the form, figuratively speaking, of a closed curve in space.

Possibly, but my concern is that there not be more things in my philosophy than are in heaven and earth.

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact, and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill-founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.