David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 21 (2):147–167 (2008)
Some opponents of the incommensurability thesis, such as Davidson and Rorty, have argued that the very idea of incommensurability is incoherent and that the existence of alternative and incommensurable conceptual schemes is a conceptual impossibility. If true, this refutes Kuhnian relativism and Kantian scepticism in one fell swoop. For Kuhnian relativism depends on the possibility of alternative, humanly accessible conceptual schemes that are incommensurable with one another, and the Kantian notion of a realm of unknowable things-in-themselves gives rise to the possibility of humanly inaccessible schemes that are incommensurable with even our best current or future science. In what follows we argue that the possibility of incommensurability of either the Kuhnian or the Kantian variety is inescapable and that this conclusion is forced upon us by a simple consideration of what is involved in acquiring a concept. It turns out that the threats from relativism and scepticism are real, and that anyone, including Davidson himself, who has ever defended an account of concept acquisition is committed to one or the other of these two possibilities.1.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Saul A. Kripke (1980/1998). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
Jerry A. Fodor (1981). Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. MIT Press.
Hilary Putnam (1981). Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Nathaniel Goldberg (2009). Triangulation, Untranslatability, and Reconciliation. Philosophia 37 (2):261-280.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2009). Response-Dependence, Noumenalism, and Ontological Mystery. European Journal of Philosophy 17 (4):469-488.
Similar books and articles
Lajos L. Brons (2011). Applied Relativism and Davidson's Arguments Against Conceptual Schemes. The Science of Mind 49:221-240.
Igor Douven & Henk W. De Regt (2002). A Davidsonian Argument Against Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):157 – 169.
Richard J. Bernstein (2010). The Specter Haunting Multiculturalism. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36 (3-4):381-394.
Harvey Siegel (1980). Epistemological Relativism in its Latest Form. Inquiry 23 (1):107 – 117.
Steven D. Hales (1997). A Consistent Relativism. Mind 106 (421):33-52.
John Collier (1984). Pragmatic Incommensurability. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:146 - 153.
Howard Sankey (1993). Kuhn's Changing Concept of Incommensurability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (4):759-774.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (1998). Incommensurability in Cognitive Guise. Philosophical Psychology 11 (1):29 – 43.
Howard Sankey (2012). Scepticism, Relativism and the Argument From the Criterion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):182-190.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #74,909 of 1,789,899 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,899 )
How can I increase my downloads?