Abstract
The question what are the differences and similarities between underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence and indeterminacy of translation in Quine's philosophy is dealt with by the author in this thesis. The author interprets that the main theme in Quine's philosophy is naturalism. According to his naturalism, he claims the existence of the external world (realism) and sees the inquiry of natural science, however fallible and corrigible, as our only way to explore the world. We simply have no higher tribunal to appeal to with respect to reality of the world. Both empiricism and physicalism are derivative doctrines from his naturalism. The thesis of underdetermination of scientific theory is derived from his holistic empiricism without two dogmas. Quine's thesis of indeterminacy of translation is the result of his insistence on linguistic behaviorism. Radical translation is the thought experiment that Quine used to establish indeterminacy of translation and reject both the Platonic semantics and mentalistic semantics. The author claims that this thought experiment fits Quine's purpose because he insists that linguists are able to learn the alien language under radical translation. The parallel between both theses is that the totality of possible evidence is insufficient to determine the system uniquely. Their differences are shown from the three respects of realism, physicalism, and translating alien physical theory. The author makes it clear in the thesis that the arguments of these four thought lines are faithful to Quine's naturalism as the ultimate premise.