Much recent work in metaontology challenges the so-called ‘Quinean tradition’ in metaphysics. Especially prominently, Amie Thomasson argues for a highly permissive ontology over ontologies which eliminate many entities. I am concerned with disputing not her ontological claim, but the methodology behind her rejection of eliminativism – I focus on ordinary objects. Thomasson thinks that by endorsing the Quinean criterion of ontological commitment eliminativism goes wrong; a theory eschewing quantification over a kind may nonetheless be committed to its existence. I argue that, contrary to Thomasson's claims, we should retain the Quinean criterion. Her arguments show that many eliminativist positions are flawed, but their flaws lie elsewhere: the Quinean criterion is innocent. Showing why reveals the importance of pragmatism in ontology. In §1 I compare Thomasson's account and the eliminativist views to which it stands in opposition. In §2 I re-construct Thomasson's reasons for rejecting the Quinean criterion. In §3 I defend the Quinean criterion, showing that the eliminativists’ flaws are not consequences of applying the Quinean criterion, before explaining the criterion's importance when properly understood. I conclude that Thomasson, though right to criticise the methodology of ordinary-object eliminativists, is wrong to identify the Quinean criterion as the source of their mistake.

中文翻译：

---

协会认定有罪：为奎因准则辩护

最近在元本体论方面的许多工作挑战了形而上学中所谓的“奎因传统”。尤其突出的是，艾米·托马森 (Amie Thomasson) 主张采用高度宽松的本体论，而不是消除许多实体的本体论。我关心的不是她的本体论主张，而是她拒绝排除主义背后的方法论——我关注的是普通对象。托马森认为，通过认可奎因主义的本体论承诺消除主义标准是错误的；一个回避对一个种类进行量化的理论可能仍然致力于它的存在。我认为，与 Thomasson 的主张相反，我们应该保留 Quinean 标准。她的论点表明，许多排除主义立场是有缺陷的，但它们的缺陷在于其他地方：奎因标准是无辜的。展示为什么揭示了实用主义在本体论中的重要性。在第 1 节中，我比较了托马森的说明和它所反对的消除主义观点。在第 2 节中，我重新构建了 Thomasson 拒绝 Quinean 标准的理由。在第 3 节中，我在解释该标准的重要性之前，在正确理解该标准之前，我为 Quinean 标准辩护，表明消除主义者的缺陷不是应用 Quinean 标准的后果。我的结论是，托马森虽然批评普通客体消除论者的方法论是正确的，但将奎因标准确定为他们错误的根源是错误的。在正确理解该标准的重要性之前，表明消除主义者的缺陷不是应用奎宁标准的后果。我的结论是，托马森虽然批评普通客体消除论者的方法论是正确的，但将奎因标准确定为他们错误的根源是错误的。在正确理解该标准的重要性之前，表明消除主义者的缺陷不是应用奎宁标准的后果。我的结论是，托马森虽然批评普通客体消除论者的方法论是正确的，但将奎因标准确定为他们错误的根源是错误的。