Assistant Professor of Philosophy Russell Marcus published “The Holistic Presumptions of the Indispensability Argument” in the current issue of the journal Synthese. In the paper, he argues against a variety of philosophers who have developed versions of the indispensability argument which, they claim, do not rely on holism.
Marcus said that some of the writers claim to have strengthened the argument by eliminating the controversial premise; Marcus showed that the apparent removal of holism from the argument is really a suppression of the premise and that without the holistic premise, the argument is implausible. He said the strongest versions of the argument rely on holism, indispensably, for better or for worse.
Synthese focuses on contemporary issues in the epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science. Google Scholar ranks it among the top philosophy journals.