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.

Similar books and articles

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.
Incommensurability, Realism, and Meta-Incommensurability.Eric Oberheim & Paul Hoyningen-Huene - 1997 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 12 (3):447-465.
Incommensurability reconsidered.Harold I. Brown - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):149-169.
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.
Taxonomic incommensurability.Howard Sankey - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):7 – 16.
Incommensurability and the Bonfire of the Meta-Theories: Response to Mizrahi.Lydia Patton - 2015 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4 (7):51-58.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
314 (#64,198)

6 months
77 (#62,850)

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