Definitely one of the more comprehensive lectures on the topic!!

Undergrad in Neuroscience just watching this stuff for fun. What a goldmine in content.

Im hearing several videos on this topic, and this offers contextual information, thanks!!

You are doing a fantastic job with these video lectures; they are gems for learning. Please keep up the great work on philosophy of language.

Very clear!

Thank you!

Thanks a lot for your effort to divulgare such harsh questions. You have a new subscriptor!!!

It is beautifully written. It’s conciseness and logical clarity make it a classic for a kind of philosophical style.

Thank you, you are a good lecturer.

Great teacher.

big thank you!

Excellent lecture thanks. Very clear and engaging. How flexible are language and meaning.

Wow, this one is very technical

Fantastic!!! Thank you Simon Cushing!!!

For what it is worth a more plausible account of the pragmatism of what truths we hold on to and what not under observation comes from Bayesiam theory, specifically Dempster Shafer theory.

Fantastic - thank you very much! One question: Which text is the example of the planetary orbit from? "Word and Object"?

Can we catch Quine in a permeative contradiction when he presupposes synonymy in papers where he attacks it?

omg think im a Quine apologist

We need Simon Cushing in the Commons.

At minute 9:18, you state that synthetic statements say something about the world because they can be verified or falsified by facts about the world, whereas analytic statements do not. I believe this is a mistake, since although an analytic statement does not depend on experience (or causal relations) for its truth, it can still be instantiated in states of affairs or facts in the concrete world, giving us epistemic access to such statements. Thank you for the video.