Watered down essences and elusive speech communities: two objections against Putnam’s twin earth argument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.38.03Słowa kluczowe:
externalism, Twin Earth argument, natural-kind terms, qua problem, interest relativity, speech communityAbstrakt
The paper presents two objections against Putnam’s Twin Earth argument, which was intended to secure semantic externalism. I first claim that Putnam’s reasoning rests on two assumptions and then try to show why these assumptions are contentious. The first objection is that, given what we know about science, it is unlikely that there are any natural-kind terms whose extension is codetermined by a small set of microstructures required by Putnam’s indexical account of extension determination. The second objection is that there may not be a plausible concept of a speech community whose adoption would classify Oscar and Twin Oscar as members of different speech communities and, at the same time, render Oscar and Twin Oscar as being in the same psychological state. I contend that Putnam’s argument fails because both objections are justified.
Bibliografia
Chambers, J. K. (1980). Linguistic Variation and Chomsky’s “Homogenous Speech Community”. In M. Kinloch, A. B. House (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association (1-32). Fredericton: University of New Brunswick.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2002). Studying Language Variation: An Informal Epistemology. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (3-13). Oxford: Blackwell (1st edition).
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116923.2003.00002.x
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0616323
Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937
Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting Biological Essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75, 344-382.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/593566
Genone, J., Lambrozo, T. (2012). Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference. Philosophical Psychology, 25 (5), 714-741.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.627538
Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The Speech Community. In D. L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (381-386). New York: Macmillan.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Häggqvist, S., Wikforss, Å. (forthcoming). Natural Kinds and Natural Kind Terms: Myth and Reality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Hendry, R. F. (2005). Lavoisier and Mendeleev on the elements. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 31-48.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FOCH.0000042886.65679.4e
Korman, D. Z. (2016). What Externalists Should Say About Dry Earth? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(10), 503-520.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20061031030
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Lambrozo, T., Gwynne, N. Z. (2014). Explanation and Inference: Mechanistic and Functional Explanations Guide Property Generalization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 7.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00700
Needham, P. (2000). What is Water? Analysis, 60(265), 13-21.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/60.1.13
Patrick, P. L. (2003). The Speech Community. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (573-597). Oxford: Blackwell (1st edition).
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116923.2003.00031.x
Putnam, H. (1975). The Meaning of “Meaning”. In K. Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge (131-193). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Shtulman, A., Schulz, L. (2008). The Relation Between Essentialist Beliefs and Evolutionary Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32, 1049-1062.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801897864
Taylor, H., Vickers, P. (2017). Conceptual Fragmentation and the Rise of Eliminativism. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 17-40.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0136-2
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell (5th edition).
Zobacz w Google Scholar
Zemach, E. (1976). Putnam’s Theory on the Reference of Substance Terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 73 (5), 116-127.
Zobacz w Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2025740
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.