Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T05:29:33.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sensation, Theory and Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

B. Thurston
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1W5
S. Coval
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1W5
Get access

Extract

One way to judge whether sensations are merely part of the causal order and not part of the cognitive or epistemic order is to determine whether or not sensations control to any extent the meaning of our observation terms. Should our observation terms have their meanings even in part determined by sensations then this would seem to be evidence that sensations are of the cognitive order. In a recent and noteworthy book, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Paul Churchland offers a development of the Sellarsian idea that sensations play a merely causal role in perception. Churchland also cites Paul Feyerabend, whose adaptation of the Sellarsian position he finds more to his purpose. The central argument of Churchland's book and the one which will be most particularly dealt with herein is an attempt to show that facts about sensations are totally irrelevant to the meaning of observation terms, even to the meaning of common observation terms such as 'hot,' 'cold,' 'white,' and 'black.' It is Churchland's contention, then, that facts about the intrinsic nature of sensations (as opposed to facts about their roles in causal chains) are semantically irrelevant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We would like to thank Michael Feld and Gary Wedeking for reading and commenting on the original draft of this paper. We are also indebted to Jack Macintosh whose reply at the Western Canadian Philosophical Association Meetings, (Regina, 1980) was helpful as were the comments of Paul Churchland in a letter occasioned by his exposure to that same version. We are grateful as well for the comments of an anonymous referee for the Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

References

2 Churchland, Paul M., Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge University Press (1979). 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Ibid., 15; Feyerabend, Paul, ‘Science Without Experience,’ Journal of Philosophy, 66, no. 22 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Churchland, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 15Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 5

6 Ibid., 6

7 Ibid., 149

8 Ibid., 8

9 Ibid., 10

10 Ibid., 10

11 Ibid., 13

12 Ibid., 11-12

13 Ibid., 12

14 Ibid., 12

15 This point is due to Gary Wedeking.

16 Churchland, , Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 9Google Scholar

17 For illustrations, see Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 11-12, 13, 15; also, in Two Grades of Evidential Bias,’ Philosophy of Science 42 (1975), see 255. Churchland often speaks of the first of these two claims as being a conclusion of his A/E argument (see Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 9, 12); in fact, he explicitly assumes it in setting up that argument (Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 8).

18 Churchland, ‘Two Grades of Evidential Bias,’ 255

19 Churchland, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, 11Google Scholar

20 Ibid., 24

21 Ibid., 6

22 Ibid., 40

23 Ibid., 41

24 Ibid., 15

25 Ibid., 150

26 Ibid., 5

27 Ibid., 36