Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:44:12.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reference and Resemblance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Hanne Andersen*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
*
Send requests for reprints to the author, Department for Medical Philosophy and Clinical Theory, Panum, Building 22–3, Blegdamsvej 3, DK-2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark; email: h.andersen@medphil.ku.dk.

Abstract

Many discussions between realists and non-realists have centered on the issue of reference, especially whether there is referential stability during theory change. In this paper, I shall summarize the debate, sketching the problems that remain within the two opposing positions, and show that both have ended on their own slippery slope, sliding away from their original position toward that of their opponents. In the search for a viable intermediate position, I shall then suggest an account of reference which, to a degree, follows the causal theory in explaining reference as carving the world at its joints. Contrary to the causal theory, however, I submit that this world is a phenomenal world whose variable joints exist only in a historical process in which they are transmitted gradually from one generation to the next. According to this account, the joints of the phenomenal world are constituted by family resemblance, where bundles of features that span bounded areas in perceptual space underlie the joints. Furthermore, the integrity of the cognitive process by which these joints are recognized depends on a transmission process by which new generations are presented with given joints and bundles by the preceding generation. Contrary to a traditional realist account, this heritage from the preceding generation may be transformed into new joints and bundles before transmission to new generations. This permits a continuous process of referential change in which the joints and bundles at different stages in the development of a theory can be connected by chains-of-reasoning.

Type
Metaphysics and Methodology of Science
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

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.)

References

Andersen, Hanne (2000), “Kuhn's Account of Family Resemblance: A Solution to the Problem of Wide-Open Texture”, Erkenntnis 52:313337.10.1023/A:1005546300818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1993), “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?”, in Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 481532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Xiang, Andersen, Hanne, and Barker, Peter (1998), “Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions and cognitive psychology”, Philosophical Psychology 11:528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael (1981), Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/devi90836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1990), “Natural Kinds”, in Barrett, R.B. and Gibson, R.F. (eds.), Perspectives on Quine. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 129141.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Hune, Paul and Oberheim, Eric (1997), “Incommensurability, Realism and Meta-Incommensurability”, Theoria 12:447465.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul, Oberheim, Eric, and Andersen, Hanne (1996), “On Incommensurability” (review of The Incommensurability Thesis by Howard Sankey), Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 27:131141.10.1016/0039-3681(95)00020-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1983), “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability”, PSA 1982, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 669688.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1991), “The Road since Structure”. PSA 1990, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 313.Google Scholar
Kukla, Andre (1994), “Scientific Realism, Scientific Practice, and the Natural Ontological Attitude”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45:955975.10.1093/bjps/45.4.955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy (1984), Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), “The meaning of ‘meaning‘”, in Gunderson, K. (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Reprinted in H. Putnam, Mind, Language and Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 215271.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1981), Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankey, Howard (1994), The Incommensurability Thesis. Aldershot: Avesbury.Google Scholar
Sankey, Howard (1997), “Incommensurability: The Current State of Play”, Theoria 12:425445.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1982), “Reason, Reference, and the Quest for Knowledge”, Philosophy of Science 49:123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1989), “Evolution and Continuity in Scientific Change”, Philosophy of Science 56:419437.10.1086/289499CrossRefGoogle Scholar