On Semantically Relevant Whatsits: A Semantics for Philosophy of Science

Abstract

We shall take it that whatever a language is, it somehow “consists” of its phonology, its (grammatical and logical) syntax and its semantics, in the sense that once the phonology, syntax and semantics are given, that constitutes a sufficient characterization or definition of the language. Here we shall be concerned, for the most part, with the question: How does one give the semantics of a language? I shall argue that even if there were meanings, whether reified or somehow not reified, a meaning is not a semantically relevant whatsit — which is to say “meanings” are not what you give in characterizing the semantics of a language. As a consequence, the question, “Change of meaning or change of belief?” either falls or has to be recast.