David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Papers 32 (1):83-96 (2003)
Abstract Curiously missing in the vast literature on Hilary Putnam's so-called model-theoretic argument against semantic realism is any response from would-be proponents of what Putnam would call magical theories of reference. Such silence is surprising in light of the fact that such theories have occupied a significant position in the history of philosophy and the fact that there are still several prominent thinkers who would, no doubt, favor such a theory. This paper develops and examines various responses to Putnam's argument on behalf of the proponent of a magical theory of reference. While Putnam's explicit replies to such responses to his argument seem to involve little more than name calling, I develop arguments that show that there are significant problems facing any would-be proponent of such a view. While magical theories of reference are far from the strawmen Putnam seems to take them to be, there are, I argue, genuine reasons for a semantic realist to prefer a non-magical theory of reference
|Keywords||Epistemology Intentionality Intrinsic Realism Reference Putnam, H|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jürgen Dümont (1999). Putnam's Model-Theoretic Argument(S). A Detailed Reconstruction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 30 (2):341-364.
Luis Fernández Moreno (2006). Cambios de Referencia: Kripke y Putnam (Changes of Reference: Kripke and Putnam). Critica 38 (114):45 - 67.
John J. Haldane (1992). Putnam on Intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (3):671-682.
Richard Gaskin (2011). Reference and the Permutation Argument. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (2pt2):295-309.
Mark Sprevak & Christina McLeish (2004). Magic, Semantics, and Putnam's Vat Brains. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 35 (2):227-236.
G. H. Merrill (1980). The Model-Theoretic Argument Against Realism. Philosophy of Science 47 (1):69-81.
Kirk Ludwig (1992). Brains in a Vat, Subjectivity, and the Causal Theory of Reference. Journal of Philosophical Research 17:313-345.
Timothy Bays (2008). Two Arguments Against Realism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):193–213.
Dan Zahavi (2004). Natural Realism, Anti-Reductionism, and Intentionality: The 'Phenomenology' of Hilary Putnam. In Phenomenology of Hilary Putnam in Space, Time, and Culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub
Steven L. Reynolds (2003). The Model Theoretic Argument, Indirect Realism, and the Causal Theory of Reference Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (2):146-154.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #181,510 of 1,792,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,575 of 1,792,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?