This article discusses a problem that arises from Richard Rorty's use of both Kuhn and Davidson to criticize putative truth criteria. I argue that there is a conflict between the positions of Kuhn and Davidson that Rorty fails to notice. However, Rorty need not choose between them, for, ironically—since Rorty is in large part motivated by putting skepticism to rest—this dilemma is avoided if his insights are instead bolstered by the support of Pyrrhonian skepticism. With the help of this support, not only do Rorty's criticisms of the mirror of nature retain their force, but (contra Rorty) philosophy retains its autonomy.

You do not currently have access to this content.