Anomalous Monism and Radical Interpretation. A Reply to Dwayne Moore

In a paper published by Teorema in 2010, D. Moore claims that my misgivings regarding the coherence between Davidson's anomalous monism and his rejection of scheme / content dualism are misplaced. I have argued that there is a tension underlying most of Davidson's philosophy that becomes more notable when we contrast his monist ontology with the holism that vertebrates his ideas about radical interpretation. Moore appeals to the extensional character of events and to the causal nature of triangulation to make Davidson's arguments compatible. In this paper I hold that both approaches highlight, rather than ease, the tension.