The purpose of this article is to show that the customary understanding of epistemic progress as a kind of belief change is incomplete and that conceptual change has to be acknowledged as a crucial driving force in epistemic progress. The author’s argument for the epistemological relevance of conceptual change proceeds as follows. First, he develops an account of conceptual change that clearly distinguishes conceptual change from belief change. He then takes a closer look at two kinds of conceptual change that (...) are of special interest from an epistemological point of view. He calls them “disclosing” conceptual change and “revisionary” conceptual change. He then shows that the idea of epistemic value that demarcates the realm of epistemological inquiry applies to concepts and conceptual change. (shrink)

Die vorliegende Studie unternimmt den Versuch, Gadamers Ideen zur Begriffsbildung und Textbedeutung einer rationalen Rekonstruktion im Licht neuerer Entwicklungen in der linguistischen und philosophischen Semantik zu unterziehen. Anschließend an eine Kritik gewisser auf Heidegger zurückgehender Annahmen in Gadamers Wahrheit und Methode werden seine Begriffe der Applikation und der Geschichtlichkeit von Textbedeutungen reformuliert. Dies geschieht unter Bezugnahme auf J. J. Katz' Bedeutungs- und Referenztheorie, H. Putnams Theorie der Stereotypen und J. M. E. Moravcsiks Begriff der 'aitiational frames'. Es wird im besonderen (...) die These vertreten, daß Gadamers Idee der Interpretation als eines Prozesses, bei dem Autor und Leser zu einer Übereinkunft über die 'Sache' kommen , neu und fruchtbar in Begriffen der Interaktion zwischen semantischer Kompetenz und Alltagswissen im Leseprozeß überdacht werden kann. In Verbindung mit weiteren Teilen linguistischer Theorie würde ein solcher Neuansatz es ermöglichen, die Frage zu beantworten wie Verstehen im Prinzip möglich ist. Eine rationale Rekonstruktion von Gadamers Begriff der Applikation in dieser Richtung würde es ferner erlauben, Antworten auf eine Reihe weiterer schwieriger Fragen wie zum Beispiel der nach dem Grad der Unbestimmtheit von Textbedeutungen und der 'Korrektheit' von Interpretationen zu erhalten. (shrink)

Die vorliegende Studie unternimmt den Versuch, Gadamers Ideen zur Begriffsbildung und Textbedeutung einer rationalen Rekonstruktion im Licht neuerer Entwicklungen in der linguistischen und philosophischen Semantik zu unterziehen. Anschließend an eine Kritik gewisser auf Heidegger zurückgehender Annahmen in GadamersWahrbeit und Methode werden seine Begriffe der Applikation und der Geschichtlichkeit von Textbedeutungen reformuliert. Dies geschieht unter Bezugnahme auf J. J. Katz' Bedeutungs- und Referenztheorie, H. Putnams Theorie der Stereotypen und J. M. E. Moravcsiks Begriff der ‘aitiational frames’. Es wird im besonderen die (...) These vertreten, daß Gadamers Idee der Interpretation als eines Prozesses, bei dem Autor und Leser zu einer Übereinkunft über die ‘Sache’ kommen (am Leitfaden der theologischen und juristischen Hermeneutik), neu und fruchtbar in Begriffen der Interaktion zwischen semantischer Kompetenz und Alltagswissen im Leseprozeß überdacht werden kann. In Verbindung mit weiteren Teilen linguistischer Theorie würde ein solcher Neuansatz es ermöglichen, die Frage zu beantworten wie Verstehen im Prinzip möglich ist. Eine rationale Rekonstruktion von Gadamers Begriff der Applikation in dieser Richtung würde es ferner erlauben, Antworten auf eine Reihe weiterer schwieriger Fragen wie zum Beispiel der nach dem Grad der Unbestimmtheit von Textbedeutungen und der ‘Korrektheit’ von Interpretationen zu erhalten. (shrink)

There are several epistemic distinctions among truths that I have argued for in this paper. First, there are those truths which holdof every rationally accessible conceptual scheme (class A truths). Second, there are those truths which holdin every rationally accessible conceptual scheme (class B truths). And finally, there are those truths whose truthvalue status isindependent of the empirical sciences (class C truths). The last category broadly includes statementsabout systems and the statements they contain, as well as statements true by virtue (...) of the rules of language itself.At the risk of anachronism, I'll describe the positions of Carnap (1956); Quine (1980); Grice et al. (1956); the various Putnam's and myself in terms of the above distinctions: both Carnap and Quine (pretty much) think there are no class A or class B truths. Both Putnam (1975) and Putnam (1983c) think there are class A and class B truths, and that these classes overlap. I deny there are class B truths but affirm the existence of class A truths (although I haven't given explicit examples of the latter here). Finally, everyone here but Quine (1980) thinks there are class C truths (of one sort or another). Putnam (1975) attempts to show that certain class C truths are simultaneously class A and class B truths. Grice et al. (1956) take pains to distinguish the claim that there are class C truths from the claim that there are class A truths, and claim (against Quine, 1980) that no argument showing there are no class A truths shows there are no class C truths.On my interpretation of Quine (1980) he thinks that the nonexistence of class A truths shows there are no class C truths-given the extra bit of argument that a notion of ‘true by convention’ or ‘true by virtue of meaning’ without epistemic content, is a distinction without significance. But that issue, which is the one Grice et al. (1956) are concerned with, has not been the focus in this paper-and so in a sense I have shifted the terms of the original debate.Here I have been primarily concerned to distinguish epistemic notions and sort out how and in what ways they relate to each other. A primary tool in this exercise has been the explicit recognition that formal models of truth make universality an unlikely property of our conceptual schemes. If I have not convinced anyone that the epistemic notions sort out the way I think they do, I hope at least that some burden-shifting has occurred: that philosophers do not either take it for granted that certain notionsmust be expressible in any conceptual scheme or treat the fact that conceptual schemes must be (in some sense) limited as of little (philosophical) moment.On the other hand, if I am right about the epistemology, it follows that previous attempts to mark out the necessary structures in rationally accessible conceptual schemes via a priori truths is hopeless. What I think must replace their role, what I call globally incorrigible sets of sentences, is a topic for another time. (shrink)

Subjectivists, taking the “collapse” of the observation-interpretation contrast much too seriously, are led to imagine that even perceptual knowledge is active. And therefore subject dependent. Turning the tables on this popular trend, I argue that even conceptual knowledge is passive. Kant’s epistemology is conceptual. But if also active, then incoherent. If synthetic a priori truths are to follow upon our mental activity, they were neither true nor, far less, a priori before that activity. “A priori” and “active” are contradictory attributes (...) of knowledge. As, indeed, are “a priori” and “subject-dependent” to begin with. Nothing a priori can be dependent on anything except itself, and least of all on the human subject. Kant does consider the active aspect of thought. The difference is that for him the more active it becomes, the less it is to be trusted. For we are no longer in the province of the Understanding, and its necessary truths, but in the realm of Pure Reason and its dialectical antinomies. Cognition activists who take a liking to Kant have simply mistaken Reason for the Understanding. And Reason is to Kant “the seat of all transcendental illusion”. (shrink)

I unpack the contents of the motto that “meaning is use” in fivefold fashion and point to the elements it contains, which are open to an ideological exploitation, the main reason for its strong appeal among intellectual circles. I indicate how the sense of it, “where there is use, there is meaning”, has encouraged equalitarian accounts of meaning and truth . I then present and discuss Austin’s distinction between the Sentence and the Statement, which entails the presence of meaning preceding (...) the use, and directing it, and offer a new proof that Sentences are impossible to eliminate in any semantic scheme of things. Austin’s distinction, as explained and defended, refutes the contention that “meaning is use”. I proceed to his doctrine of Locution and Illocution, reflecting the previous, indicating by a series of examples, that illocutionary varieties, which are varieties but not variances , can never extend beyond the se-mantic scope generically contained in the original, content; that is to say, the Sentence. Those that do, and they are several, violate the rules of sense. I enumerate his vast differences with Wittgenstein, and proceed to defend Austin’s noted conservatism against the novelties endorsed by the former and his disciples. Charging Wittgenstein’s private language attack as circular, I conclude by marking their further contrast on the actual foundations of meaning and truth. (shrink)

It is often argued that inferential role semantics (IRS) entails semantic holism as long as theorists fail to answer the question about which inferences, among the many, are meaning-constitutive. Since analyticity, as truth in virtue of meaning, is a widely dismissed notion in indicating which inferences determine meaning, it seems that holism follows. Semantic holism is often understood as facing problems with the stability of content and many usual explanations of communication. Thus, we should choose between giving up IRS, to (...) avoid these holistic entailments, and defending holism against this charge, to rescue IRS. I try to pursue the second goal by analyzing certain patterns of counterfactual reasoning. Wilfrid Sellars and Robert Brandom claim that, to defend IRS, content-constitutive inferences are those counterfactually robust. While it is difficult to assess the goodness of such a view, it nonetheless entails that counterfactually non-robust inferences (which I call “modally ruled out inferences”) are not content-constitutive. If this is true, and if we take certain remarks about the grasp of concepts on board, there is a way to restrict the scope of the holism entailed by IRS to the extent of reshaping problems with the stability of content. (shrink)