David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:119-124 (2007)
The current discussions of conceptual schemes and related topics are misguided; for they are based on a tacit assumption that the difference between two schemes consists in the different distributions in truth-values. I argue that what should concern us, in the discussions of conceptual schemes and related issues, is not truth-values of assertions, but rather the truth-value-status of the sentences used to make the assertions. This is because the genuine conceptual innovation between alternative theories or languages does not lie in differences in determining truth-values of their sentences, but turns on whether these sentences have truth-values when considered within the context of a competing one. This new interpretation of the notion of conceptual schemes, which I refer to as presuppositional languages, is not only good in itself—for establishing the intelligibility and tenability of the notion—but quite beneficial in its effect on other related issues.
|Keywords||conceptual schemes presupposition presuppositional language|
|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
Timothy J. Nulty (2009). Conceptual Schemes Revisited: Davidsonian Metaphysical Pluralism. [REVIEW] Metaphysica 10 (1):123-134.
Anthony Brueckner (1998). Conceptual Relativism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (4):295–301.
Michael P. Lynch (1997). Three Models of Conceptual Schemes. Inquiry 40 (4):407 – 426.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2004). E Pluribus Unum: Arguments Against Conceptual Schemes and Empirical Content. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (4):411-438.
Nicholas Unwin (2007). Aiming at Truth. Palgrave Macmillan.
Xinli Wang (2009). On Davidson's Refutation of Conceptual Schemes and Conceptual Relativism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (1):140-164.
Isaac Nevo (2004). In Defence of a Dogma: Davidson, Languages, and Conceptual Schemes. Ratio 17 (3):312–328.
Michael Morreau (1999). Supervaluation Can Leave Truth-Value Gaps After All. Journal of Philosophy 96 (3):148-156.
Lajos L. Brons (2011). Applied Relativism and Davidson's Arguments Against Conceptual Schemes. The Science of Mind 49:221-240.
Nathaniel Goldberg & Matthew Rellihan (2008). Incommensurability, Relativism, Scepticism: Reflections on Acquiring a Concept. Ratio 21 (2):147–167.
Hans-Johann Glock (2009). Concepts, Conceptual Schemes and Grammar. Philosophia 37 (4):653-668.
Dale Jacquette (2010). Circularity or Lacunae in Tarski's Truth-Schemata. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3):315-326.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (1998). Incommensurability in Cognitive Guise. Philosophical Psychology 11 (1):29 – 43.
Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads100 ( #42,701 of 1,934,535 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #41,660 of 1,934,535 )
How can I increase my downloads?