 However, although such a proposal may offer a promising strategy for meeting Quine’s challenge about many ordinary terms, it isn’t clear it would work for highly theoretic ones. For if Quine (1953 [1980a]) is right about even a limited holism involved in the use of scientific terms, then there may be no sufficiently local basic facts on which all other uses of a term asymmetrically and explanatorily depend. To take the kind of case that most interested Quine, it certainly seems unlikely that there is some small set of uses of, say, “number,” “positron,” “space” or “biological species” that are explanatorily basic, on which all other uses really depend. Such terms often come with a large cluster of terms appearing in claims that come as, so to say, a loose “package deal,” and revision over time may touch any particular claim in the interests of overall explanatory adequacy. Uses of a term involved in the expression of belief, either in thought or talk, will likely be justified and explained by the same processes of holistic confirmation that led Quine to his scepticism about the analytic in the first place (cf. Gibbard, 2008). Of course, Quine might be wrong about taking the case of theoretic terms in science to be representative of terms in human psychology generally (cf. Chomsky, 2000,  footnote 10  above), and the above proposal might be confined to some restricted portions of a speaker’s psychology, e.g., to perception (as in Fodor, 1983, 2000). But, to put it mildly, the verdict on these issues is not quite in (see supplement §§4–5).