The Epistemic Goal of a Concept: Accounting for the Rationality of Semantic Change and Variation

Synthese 177 (1):19-40 (2010)
The discussion presents a framework of concepts that is intended to account for the rationality of semantic change and variation, suggesting that each scientific concept consists of three components of content: 1) reference, 2) inferential role, and 3) the epistemic goal pursued with the concept’s use. I argue that in the course of history a concept can change in any of these components, and that change in the concept’s inferential role and reference can be accounted for as being rational relative to the third component, the concept’s epistemic goal. This framework is illustrated and defended by application to the history of the gene concept. It is explained how the molecular gene concept grew rationally out of the classical gene concept despite a change in reference, and why the use and reference of the contemporary molecular gene concept may legitimately vary from context to context.
Keywords Theoretical concepts  Conceptual change  Semantic variation  Epistemic goals  Gene concept
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/40985618
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,914
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Lenny Moss (2002). What Genes Can't Do. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).

View all 37 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Charles T. Wolfe (2014). The Organism as Ontological Go-Between. Hybridity, Boundaries and Degrees of Reality in its Conceptual History. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1:
Daniel S. Brooks (2013). Book Reviews. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 44 (1):235-245.
Jan Surman, Katalin Stráner & Peter Haslinger (2014). Nomadic Concepts in the History of Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 48:127-129.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

130 ( #16,011 of 1,725,572 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

13 ( #53,223 of 1,725,572 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.