Scientific realism and the semantic incommensurability thesis

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):196-202 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the challenge presented to scientific realism by the semantic incommensurability thesis. A twofold distinction is drawn between methodological and semantic incommensurability, and between semantic incommensurability due to variation of sense and due to discontinuity of reference. Only the latter presents a challenge to scientific realism. The realist may dispose of this challenge on the basis of a modified causal theory of reference, as argued in the author’s 1994 book, The incommensurability thesis. This referential response has been the subject of a charge of meta-incommensurability by Hoyningen-Huene et al., who argue that the realist’s referential response begs the question against anti-realist advocates of incommensurability. In reply, it is noted that a tu quoque rejoinder is available to the realist. It is also argued that the dialectical situation favours the scientific realist, since the anti-realist defence of incommensurability depends on an incoherent distinction between phenomenal world and world-in-itself. In light of such incoherence, and a strong commonsense presumption in favour of realism, the referential response to semantic incommensurability may be justifiably based on realism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Incommensurability and Theory Change.Howard Sankey - 2010 - In Steven D. Hales (ed.), A Companion to Relativism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 456-474.
A Curious Disagreement: response to Hoyningen-Huene and Oberheim.Howard Sankey - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):210-212.
Meta-incommensurability Revisited.Hyundeuk Cheon - 2014 - Theoria 29 (2):243-259.
Reference, ontological replacement and Neo-Kantianism: a reply to Sankey.Paul Hoyningen-Huene & Eric Oberheim - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):203-209.
Incommensurability reconsidered.Harold I. Brown - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):149-169.
The Incommensurability Thesis.Howard Sankey - 1994 - Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
504 (#54,652)

6 months
136 (#33,906)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Howard Sankey
University of Melbourne

Citations of this work

Scepticism, relativism and the argument from the criterion.Howard Sankey - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):182-190.
To What Do Psychiatric Diagnoses Refer? A Two-Dimensional Semantic Analysis of Diagnostic Terms.Hane Htut Maung - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 55:1-10.
Reference, ontological replacement and Neo-Kantianism: a reply to Sankey.Paul Hoyningen-Huene & Eric Oberheim - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):203-209.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Naming and Necessity.S. Kripke - 1972 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 45 (4):665-666.
Theory change and the indeterminacy of reference.Hartry Field - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (14):462-481.
Designation.M. Devitt - 1983 - Mind 92 (368):622-624.
The Incommensurability Thesis.Howard Sankey - 1994 - Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.

View all 17 references / Add more references