Conventions made too simple?

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (4):417-426 (2003)

For Ruth Millikan, convention consists of patterns that are produced by reproduction which proliferate due partly to weight of precedent. The authors argue that on Millikan’s account, a lot more is going to count as conventional than seems reasonable on any plausible account of convention. Moreover, at least some things that the authors think ought to be counted as conventions are going to get left out. Key Words: conventions • rules • Ruth Millikan • David Lewis.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/0048393103257959
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,545
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Language Conventions Made Simple.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 1998 - Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161.
Baseball and Biology.Martin Bunzl - 1999 - Philosophia 27 (3-4):575-580.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Convention.Michael Rescorla - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Game Theory Andconvention.Margaret Gilbert - 1981 - Synthese 46 (1):41 - 93.
Are Language Conventions Philosophically Explanatory?Adèle Mercier - 2003 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):111-124.
Agreements, Conventions, and Language.Margaret Gilbert - 1983 - Synthese 54 (3):375 - 407.
Language Conventions Made Simple.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 1998 - Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161-180.


Added to PP index

Total views
43 ( #172,739 of 2,325,377 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #50,620 of 2,325,377 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature