Sidestepping the holes of holism Tadeusz Ciecierski taci@uw.edu.pl University of Warsaw Institute of Philosophy Piotr Wilkin pwl@mimuw.edu.pl University of Warsaw Institute of Philosophy / Institute of Informatics Abstract In our paper we attempt to achieve two goals: one of providing a more explicit characterization of holism and the other of showing that holism about confirmation and holism about meaning are less attractive positions than it is often presupposed. In the course of accomplishing the first task we distinguish two theses strictly connected with holism – one which we call the Contingency Thesis and the second one called the Degrees of Holistic Involvement Thesis. Both theses are used in arguments against holism sketched in the final parts of our paper. 1. Introduction Holism is a position shared by many contemporary philosophers beginning with French conventionalists, Ajdukiewicz and some logical empiricists, ending with Quine, Davidson and even some postmodern philosophers. It has been characterized usually in an implicit manner, using metaphors rather than precise definitions. Nevertheless, it has found a strong rooting in many branches of philosophy, such as epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy. Despite its vagueness, it is nowadays usually not the subject of strong controversy among professional philosophers that some holistic picture characterizes essential properties of the scientific enterprise, language, or the mind, respectively. Below we will attempt to show that holism might not be as attractive an idea as it appears at first glance. We will concentrate on two versions of holism: holism about confirmation and linguistic holism (holism about meaning). Our approach will borrow the