Abstract
Kathryn Parsons attempts a criticism of the traditional approach to the problem of meaning invariance of predicate expressions when a theory is replaced by a successor. I have considered three types of cases which Parsons presents as counter-examples to Fine's criterion, and find that the first two do not succeed in refuting the criterion. The third, however, does suceed; and I argue that there is no way to revise Fine's criterion in order to remove the difficulty. Hence some non-traditional approach to meaning invariance is required, or subjectivity in the science must be shown to be avoidable in spite of the incommensurability of theories.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carloye, J.C. The traditional approach to meaning invariance. Philos Stud 26, 193–205 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398878
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398878