Semantics and the Social Sciences [Book Review]

Review of Metaphysics 36 (3):723-724 (1983)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This book, by two philosophers at Bradford University, immediately strikes the American reader with two differences in the British philosophical scene. One is the enveloping commitment to "Davidsonian linguistics" which still seems the central topic for many of Oxford's younger philosophers. In this slim volume Davidsonian semantics is thought to provide that some measure of cross-cultural understanding is possible, that humanistic descriptions of human activity are irreplaceable and unrevisable since action explanation is non-nomothetic though often causal and inferential, that collectives may have expressive but not explanatory autonomy, and that social descriptions are not irredeemably value-laden. Who would have thought Davidsonian semantics had so much blood in it? Though the Tarskian T-Convention requirement is outlined in the short introductory chapter, one is hard put to see any real connection between the insistence on model theoretic and extensional approaches and the subsequent chapters. Though the introduction briefly allows that intensional notions are to be ignored, we are later assured that we may safely ascribe one classical logic to primitives and humans generally since "only at the highly advanced level of theoretical physics has it been found necessary to experiment with different logics". Ignored are those who think mathematics itself requires an intuitionist or intensional understanding. Also ignored are the many linguists who have recently held that the vast majority of sentences in everyday speech require intensional or modal analysis. The authors also use the label "functionalism" for the view that a society is something like a biological organism rather than a collection of rational agents. One finds this usage disconcerting. Much more unfortunate is that the authors seem innocent of the rich philosophical and psychological and neurological work on mental states and psychological explanation that has grown up around the more recent usage of the term.--Justin Leiber, University of Houston.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

II. Understanding in the social sciences revisited.James W. van Evra - 1969 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 12 (1-4):347-349.
Concepts and society.Ian Charles Jarvie - 1972 - London,: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Relevancy of the social sciences in the next millennium.Barbara L. Neuby (ed.) - 1998 - [Carrollton, Ga.]: The State University of West Georgia.
Defending laws in the social sciences.Harold Kincaid - 1990 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20 (1):56?83.
Social enquiry: goals and approaches.Mohini Mullick (ed.) - 1979 - New Delhi: Manohar.
The nature of moral inquiry in the social sciences: essays.Clarke E. Cochran (ed.) - 1999 - [Notre Dame, Indiana]: Erasmus Institute.
Knowledge and the social sciences: theory, method, practice.David Goldblatt (ed.) - 2000 - New York: Routledge, in association with Open University.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-03-18

Downloads
64 (#243,546)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Justin Leiber
PhD: University of Chicago; Last affiliation: Florida State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references