Willard Quine

Willard Quine (1908-2000) was a mathematician and philosopher of science at Harvard University for 44 years. I have found Quine to be very helpful in trying to understand why there are so many unsolved debates in every field of thinking and research. Quine stated that every theory is underdetermined by the facts or evidence that supports it. Every theorist takes the available evidence and organizes it into a coherent and internally consistent monolith. It is easy to understand why there might be two or more theories that are contradictory but that are both internally consistent and that both utilize the same set of facts. No system can incorporate all of the facts when constructing its theory. One system will place more weight on some evidence and less on other evidence. One system will ignore certain facts while another system incorporates them.

I find this helpful in explaining the persistent theological (Calvinism vs. Arminianism etc.), philosophical (freedom vs. determinism etc.), political (one form of government vs. another etc.), and scientific (Intelligent Design vs. naturalistic evolution etc.) debates.

What I wonder is whether it is better to hold some contradictory beliefs both of which seem to describe important truths than to resolve the contradictions in favor of an internally consistent theory. Resolving the conflict in this way can end a fruitful debate and make the important issues that they represent disappear. Loyalty to a theory through this kind of resolution might actually have the effect of barricading us against the truth. There is a tremendous pull towards keeping everything consistent and towards averting as quickly as possible any contradictions that might create confusion. I believe it was Emerson who said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." The resolution of important issues into neatly defined camps can have the effect of polarizing, even ghetoizing, the debate. The important thing then becomes defending the camp, rather than pursuing the truth. This has led many debates into endless talking past each other, ad hominem argumentation, and fruitless rhetorical tricks.