Abstract

I argue that the importance of reference for scientific explanation has been overlooked, and that actual referential stability itself is more important in the success of scientific theories than many apparently believe. Citing the work of Van Fraassen and Lipton, I delineate cases of referential failure, both intratheoretically and intertheoretically, and remind us of the role played by reference in theories both realist and non‐realist. I conclude that work on such areas as contrastive explanation cannot move forward without a better account of reference, and cite previously published material on the relationship between reference and epistemic access.