Online research in philosophy

The unity of organisms can be viewed in terms of the concepts of enkapsis and complementarity. A model (or a type) represents those properties (of elements, structure, and system) which renders cases - the organisms under consideration — comparable. Comparability is established by operations (or metamorphoses) which relate a case to a model. Therefore, the model and the operations must be enumerated together, if a certain morphology is to be established and applied. Two models, which in some way are related, are conjunct, otherwise they are disjunct. If one model is deducible from the other, they are enkaptic conjunct. If the models are essentially different, that is to say that they cannot be transduced into each other, although they condition each other, they are complementary conjunct: although not comparable themselves, only both together describe a case (or a set of cases) completely. Now, the comparability of a case with two models is considered. The two basic patterns of general comparability are homology and analogy. If the two models are complementary conjunct, nine patterns of special comparability can be distinguished. Each is named in accordance with the general meaning of homology and analogy and, as far as possible, with conventional scientific usage. With minor modifications the terminology also applies to more complicated patterns of comparability including distinct or different conjunct models.

It is argued that if Kuhn's current attempt to characterize conceptual incommensurability is correct, then the phenomenon of conceptual incommensurability is epistemologically innocuous. The first part of the paper explains why available techniques of reference specification provide rival scientists with sufficient access to one another's languages to compare their views. The second half of the paper attempts to elaborate an account of conceptual incommensurability that will develop (what the author takes to be) Kuhn's fundamental insight.

Abstract:  The paper provides a general account of value relations. It takes its departure in a special type of value relation, parity, which according to Ruth Chang is a form of evaluative comparability that differs from the three standard forms of comparability: betterness, worseness and equal goodness. Recently, Joshua Gert has suggested that the notion of parity can be accounted for if value comparisons are interpreted as normative assessments of preference. While Gert's basic idea is attractive, the way he develops it is flawed: His modeling of values by intervals of permissible preference strengths is inadequate. Instead, I provide an alternative modeling in terms of intersections of rationally permissible preference orderings. This yields a general taxonomy of all binary value relations. The paper concludes with some implications of this approach for rational choice.

Kuhn's incommensurability thesis of 1962 still implies a very radical critique of standard theories of meaning. It is argued that incommensurability is sufficiently pervasive throughout the development of theories as to call in question standard linguistic palliatives, and that Kuhn's critique of extensionalist translation must be carried further into a theory of interpretation which not only depends on holistic meanings, but also explicitly addresses the ostensive and analogical processes of language learning. Such a theory is required for the pervasively metaphoric character of natural language, as well as for the understanding of theoretical terms in science.

A number of comparability theorems have been investigated from the viewpoint of reverse mathematics. Among these are various comparability theorems between countable well orderings ([2],[8]), and between closed sets in metric spaces ([3],[5]). Here we investigate the reverse mathematics of a comparability theorem for countable metric spaces, countable linear orderings, and sets of rationals. The previous work on closed sets used a strengthened notion of continuous embedding. The usual weaker notion of continuous embedding is used here. As a byproduct, we sharpen previous results of [3],[5].

This paper reviews the situation with respect to the referential approach to the problem of semantic incommensurability. It argues that the thesis of semantic incommensurability does not pose a significant threat to scientific realism. However, there exists a "non-realist" defence of incommensurability, according to which the referential approach begs the question against advocates of the incommensurability thesis. This defence is criticized, and the basis for a realist response to incommensurability is presented.

The essay begins with a detailed consideration of the introduction of incommensurability by Feyerabend in 1962 which exposes several historically inaccurate claims about incommensurability. Section 2 is a coneise argument against causal theories of reference as used as arguments against incommensurability. We object to this strategy because it begs the question by presupposing realism. Section 3 introduces and discusses a hypothesis that w'e call meta-incommensurability which provides the reason for the wide-spread accusation of question-begging and use of circular argumentation among the proponents of both realist and non-realist interpretations of science.

The author's concept of incommensurability is explicated by elaborating the claim that some terms essential to the formulation of older theories defy translation into the language of more recent ones. Defense of this claim rests on the distinction between interpreting a theory in a later language and translating the theory into it. The former is both possible and essential, the latter neither. The interpretation/translation distinction is then applied to Kitcher's critique of incommensurability and Quine's conception of a translation manual, both of which take reference-preservation as the sole semantic criterion of translational adequacy. The paper concludes by enquiring about the additional criteria a successful translation must satisfy.

Since 1962 Kuhn's concept of incommensurability has undergone a process of transformation. His current account of incommensurability has little in common with his original account of it. Originally, incommensurability was a relation of methodological, observational and conceptual disparity between paradigms. Later Kuhn restricted the notion to the semantical sphere and assimilated it to the indeterminacy of translation. Recently he has developed an account of it as localized translation failure between subsets of terms employed by theories.