Abstract

When discussing around his Gödel-Schmidt case, Kripke implicitly invoked our intuitive judgements about reference to argue against descriptivism on proper names. E. Machery and some collaborators have used survey data to attack Kripkean theses. In this article, I raise a new objection to this kind of criticism of anti-descriptivism. The participants in the surveys were presented with two possible answers to a determinate question. I show that the answer that Machery and his collaborators presuppose to be descriptivist is in fact ambiguous, and it can be interpreted according to a reading that is perfectly compatible with anti-descriptivism. To argue for this thesis, I describe two ambiguities in the experimental setup that inspires their claims. Both ambiguities relate to the distinction between counterfactual and actualist readings of certain hypotheses, questions or statements.