Is Reference Borrowing a Causal Process?
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):41-49 (2006)
| Abstract | In this paper I question Devitt and Sterelny’s proposal that reference borrowing is a causal process and that the reference borrower is ignorant about the referent.I argue that borrowers need to have some true beliefs about the referent. If so, reference borrowing involves a causal chain of communication together with some associated description. The conclusion is that what is needed for reference borrowing of other kind terms is also needed for the natural kind terms. There is no need to posit a difference between the two. Thus as you cannot refer to daggers by ‘dagger’ unless you realize that they are edged weapons, so you cannot refer to tigers by ‘tiger’ unless you realize that they are animals of a certain sort. The theory of reference borrowing that we need here in both cases seems to be descriptive-causal and not only causal.If the traditional views of borrowing have demanded too much of individual speakers, the causal picture surely demands too little. Mere causal connection with some antecedent tradition of name use does not suffice for the preservation of reference | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDunja Jutronić (2008). Reference Borrowing and the Role of Descriptions. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):349-360.
Michael Devitt (2008). Reference Borrowing. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):361-366.
Antonio Rauti (2011). Multiple Groundings and Deference. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (247):317-336.
Charles Nussbaum (2001). Troubles with the Causal Homeostasis Theory of Reference. Philosophical Psychology 14 (2):155 – 178.
Jussi Jylkkä (2008). Theories of Natural Kind Term Reference and Empirical Psychology. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):153-169.
Ingo Brigandt (2004). Biological Kinds and the Causal Theory of Reference. In J. C. Marek & M. E. Reicher (eds.), Experience and Analysis: Papers of the 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Luis Fernández Moreno (2006). Cambios de Referencia: Kripke y Putnam (Changes of Reference: Kripke and Putnam). Crítica 38 (114):45 - 67.
Friedel Weinert (1991). Introducing Events, Successful Reference and Reference-Fixing. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (1):155-167.
James Genone & Tania Lombrozo (2012). Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):1-26.
Jane Duran (2005). Realism, Positivism and Reference. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):401 - 407.
Michael Devitt (2006). Responses to the Rijeka Papers. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):97-112.
Kirk Ludwig (1992). Brains in a Vat, Subjectivity, and the Causal Theory of Reference. Journal of Philosophical Research 17:313-345.
Ullin T. Place (1989). Toward a Connectionist Version of the Causal Theory of Reference. Acta Analytica 4 (5):71-97.
Michael P. Wolf (2007). Reference and Incommensurability: What Rigid Designation Won't Get You. Acta Analytica 22 (3):207-222.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-01-09Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
