Quine’s ‘web of belief’ is a metaphor for the interconnectedness of our knowledge and beliefs. In his view, beliefs form a network, with some beliefs more central and fundamental, while others are peripheral and subject to revision. Central beliefs, such as logical laws or mathematical truths, are more resistant to change. Peripheral beliefs, like everyday observations or specific scientific hypotheses, are more easily revised when new evidence or experiences challenge them. Quine’s model rejects the notion of a foundational basis for knowledge, instead viewing it as a holistic system where each belief is potentially revisable, albeit with varying stability.
Quine’s model aligns with philosophical pragmatism because it emphasizes the practical consequences of beliefs and the adaptability of knowledge in response to experience, rather than seeking foundational or immutable truths. Like pragmatists, Quine sees knowledge as dynamic and evolving, where the justification for beliefs lies in their ability to function coherently within the whole web and help us navigate the world. This anti-foundationalism and focus on practical efficacy over certainty reflects key elements of philosophical pragmatism, where truth is not absolute but dependent on its usefulness in guiding action and inquiry.
Stating that ‘truth is not absolute’ carries significant risk, notably the potential for vulgar postmodern relativism—a stance both Quine and I strongly reject. However, I believe we owe it to ourselves, to others, and even to the world (whatever that may mean; perhaps a Camusian vague embrace of it is enough) to pursue intellectual honesty. This requires precision. Arguing for ontological relativity, for example, represents a thoughtful, non-trivial form of relativism that remains distinct from vulgarity.
This project is about describing this web of belief, which is my web of belief1. The perspective is also inspired by Huw Price’s subject naturalism, shifting the focus from the metaphysical nature of reality to understanding how humans engage with and talk about the world. I’m less concerned with uncovering what reality is in an abstract sense; we can, after all, discuss reality in diverse ways. Instead, I’m interested in how we, as subjects, navigate, interpret, and interact with the world through practices, language, and concepts.
Footnotes
There isn’t a single universal ‘web of belief’ shared by all, rather, each individual possesses a unique web that reflects their personal experiences, knowledge, and worldview. While people may indeed share many core beliefs—such as fundamental scientific facts—the overall structure of their beliefs, and the connections between them, can vary greatly from one person to another. To be clear, we share a substantial number of core beliefs, and I reject extreme solipsism and any form of vulgar relativism. Yet belief encompasses more than just our commonalities; it also reflects the individual variations that make each perspective distinct.↩︎