Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T16:17:42.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Holism in Scientific Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Holger Andreas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whether meaning is compositional has been a major issue in linguistics and formal philosophy of language for the last 2 decades. Semantic holism is widely and plausibly considered as an objection to the principle of semantic compositionality therein. It comes as a surprise that the holistic peculiarities of scientific language have been rarely addressed in formal accounts so far, given that semantic holism has its roots in the philosophy of science. For this reason, a model-theoretic approach to semantic holism in the language of science is presented here. This approach preserves compositionality to a large extent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 524 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Andreas, Holger. 2008. “Another Solution to the Problem of Theoretical Terms.” Erkenntnis 69:315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzer, Wolfgang, Moulines, C. Ulises, and Sneed, Joseph. 1987. An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Ned. 1986. “Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10:615–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1939. Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1956. “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concept.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Scriven, Michael, 38–76. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1973. Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1975. “Observational Language and Theoretical Language.” In Rudolf Carnap: Logical Empiricist, ed. Hintikka, Jaakko, 75–85. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo. 1956. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1906/1991. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Repr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1978. “The Justification of Deduction.” In Truth and Other Enigmas, 290–318. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, John. 1999. The Concept of Logical Consequence. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1962. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover, 28–97. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K.. 1978. Ausgewählte Schriften. Bd. 1. Der wissenschaftstheoretische Realismus und die Autorität der Wissenschaften. Braunschweig: Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernest. 1991. “Why Meaning (Probably) Isn’t Conceptual Role.” Mind and Language 6:328–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruenbaum, Adolf. 1973. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. 2nd ed. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko, and Sandu, Gabriel. 2001. “Aspects of Compositionality.” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10 (1): 49–61.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1970. “How to Define Theoretical Terms.” Journal of Philosophy 67:427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst. 1933. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 1997. “Is Compositionality Compatible with Meaning Holism?” Mind and Language 12:11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagin, Peter. 2006. “Meaning Holism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, ed. Lepore, Ernest and Smith, Barry C., 213–32. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Poincaré, Henri. 1902/1952. Science and Hypothesis. Repr. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. 1961. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View, 20–46. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O.. 1969a. “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O.. 1969b. “Ontological Relativity.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 26–68. Cambridge, MA: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O.. 1972. Methods of Logic. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O.. 1981. “Five Milestones of Empiricism.” In Theories and Things, 67–72. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O.. 1992. Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard. 2005. “Semantic Holism and (Non-) Compositionality of Scientific Theories.” In The Compositionality of Meaning and Content, ed. Wernig, Markus, Machery, Eduard, and Schurz, Gerhard, 271–84. Vol. 1. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1969. “Presupposition, Supervaluations and Free Logic.” In The Logical Way of Doing Things, ed. Lambert, Karel, 67–92. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar