Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2):196-202 (2009)
|Abstract||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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #18,844 of 549,128 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,263 of 549,128 )
How can I increase my downloads?