Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||It has sometimes been suggested that the so-called new theory of reference (NTR) would provide an alternative picture of meaning and reference which avoids the unwelcome consequences of the meaning-variance thesis and incommesurability. However, numerous philosophers of science have been quite critical towards the idea and NTR in general. It is argued that many of them have an over-simplified and, in part, mistaken understanding of what NTR amounts to. It is submitted that NTR, when correctly understood, can be an important ingredient in the realist toolkit for defending the rationality of science.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Dudley Shapere (1982). Reason, Reference, and the Quest for Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 49 (1):1-23.
Howard Sankey (2000). The Language of Science: Meaning Variance and Theory Comparison. Language Sciences 22 (2):117-136.
Brian Bix (2003). Can Theories of Meaning and Reference Solve the Problem of Legal Determinacy? Ratio Juris 16 (3):281-295.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1997). Reference Invariance and Truthlikeness. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):546-554.
Friedel Weinert (1991). Introducing Events, Successful Reference and Reference-Fixing. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (1):155-167.
David Braddon-Mitchell (2005). The Subsumption of Reference. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (1):157-178.
Donald Hockney (1975). The Bifurcation of Scientific Theories and Indeterminacy of Translation. Philosophy of Science 42 (4):411-427.
Quentin Smith (1991). The New Theory of Reference Entails Absolute Time and Space. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):411-416.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #38,103 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?