As is reasonably well-appreciated, Quine struggled with his definition of the all-important notion of an observation sentence; especially in order to make them bear out his commitment to language’s being a ‘social art’. In an earlier article (Mind 131(523):805–825, 2022), I proposed a certain repair, which here I will explain, justify and articulate further. But it also infects the definition of observation categoricals, and furthermore makes it a secondary matter, a seeming afterthought, that evidence, science and knowledge generally are shared—are joint, social and collaborative products. Without forsaking Quine’s strict naturalism, I try to make the necessary adjustments to Quine’s scheme.

众所周知，蒯因在定义观察句这个最重要的概念时遇到了困难。尤其是为了让它们证实他对语言作为“社会艺术”的承诺。在之前的一篇文章（Mind 131(523):805–825, 2022）中，我提出了某种修复，在这里我将进一步解释、论证和阐明。但它也影响了观察范畴的定义，并进一步使其成为次要问题，看似事后的想法，即证据、科学和知识通常是共享的——是联合的、社会的和协作的产品。在不放弃蒯因严格的自然主义的情况下，我尝试对蒯因的方案进行必要的调整。