David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2):196-202 (2009)
This paper reviews the situation with respect to the referential approach to the problem of semantic incommensurability. It argues that the thesis of semantic incommensurability does not pose a significant threat to scientific realism. However, there exists a "non-realist" defence of incommensurability, according to which the referential approach begs the question against advocates of the incommensurability thesis. This defence is criticized, and the basis for a realist response to incommensurability is presented.
|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
Hartry Field (1973). Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference. Journal of Philosophy 70 (14):462-481.
Philip Kitcher (1978). Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change. Philosophical Review 87 (4):519-547.
Michael Martin (1971). Referential Variance and Scientific Objectivity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):17-26.
Robert Nola (2008). The Optimistic Meta-Induction and Ontological Continuity: The Case of the Electron. In Lena Soler, Howard Sankey & Paul Hoyningen-Huene (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison. Springer.
Eric Oberheim, Hanne Andersen & Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1996). On Incommensurability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (1):131-141.
Citations of this work BETA
Howard Sankey (2012). Scepticism, Relativism and the Argument From the Criterion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):182-190.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene & Eric Oberheim (2009). Reference, Ontological Replacement and Neo-Kantianism: A Reply to Sankey. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):203-209.
Howard Sankey (2009). A Curious Disagreement: Response to Hoyningen-Huene and Oberheim. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2):210-212.
Similar books and articles
Harold I. Brown (1983). Incommensurability. Inquiry 26 (1):3 – 29.
S. K. Arun Murthi & Sundar Sarukkai (2009). Multisemiosis and Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):297-311.
A. Polikarov (1993). Is There an Incommensurability Between Superseding Theories? On the Validity of the Incommensurability Thesis. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 24 (1):127 - 146.
Paul T. Sagal (1972). Incommensurability Then and Now. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 3 (2):298-301.
Howard Sankey (1997). Incommensurability: The Current State of Play. Theoria 12 (3):425-445.
Howard Sankey (2000). The Language of Science: Meaning Variance and Theory Comparison. Language Sciences 22 (2):117-136.
Howard Sankey (1998). Taxonomic Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):7 – 16.
Howard Sankey (1997). Incommensurability: The Current State of Play. Theoria 12 (3):425-45.
Eric Oberheim & Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1997). Incommensurability, Realism, and Meta-Incommensurability. Theoria 12 (3):447-465.
Michael Esfeld (2005). Scientific Realism and the History of Science. Philosophy 1:1-15.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads60 ( #24,050 of 1,096,583 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #153,658 of 1,096,583 )
How can I increase my downloads?