Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:39:08.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory-Dependent Terms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David Papineau
David Papineau*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy King's College London
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, King's College, London, England WC2R 2LS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main puzzle about theoretical definitions is that nothing seems to decide which assumptions contribute to such definitions and which do not. I argue that theoretical definitions are indeed imprecise, but that this does not normally matter, since the definitional imprecision does not normally produce indeterminacy of referential value. Sometimes, however, the definitional imprecision is less benign, and does generate referential indeterminacy. In these special cases, but not otherwise, it is necessary to refine the term's definition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

For help with this paper, I would like to thank Tad Brennan, Tim Crane, Michael Devitt, Keith Hossack, Sarah Patterson, Stathis Psillos, Murali Ramachandran, Mark Sainsbury, Barry Smith, Steven Stich, Scott Sturgeon, and Bernhard Weiss.

References

Carnap, R. (1936). “Testability and Meaning”, Philosophy of Science 3:419–471, Philosophy of Science 4: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1966), Philosophical Foundations of Physics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. (forthcoming), Coming to our Senses: A Naturalistic Program for Semantic Localism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, in Feigl, H., Maxwell, G., and Scriven, M. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 231–272.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1965), “On the ‘Meaning’ of Scientific Terms”, Journal of Philosophy 62: 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1987), Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974), The Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1970), “How to Define Theoretical Terms”, Journal of Philosophy 67: 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972), “Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1979), Theory and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, , (1973), “Explanation and Reference”, in Pearce, G. and Maynard, P. (eds.), Conceptual Change. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review 60: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. (1931), “Theories”, in his The Foundations of Mathematics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ramsey, W., Stich, S., and Garon, J., (1990), “Connectionism, Eliminativism and the Future of Folk Psychology”, in Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 4: Action Theory and Philosophy of Mind:499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1966), “Meaning and Scientific Change”, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Mind and Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (1991), “Do True Believers Exist?”, Arisotelian Society Supplementary Volume LXV:229–244.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (1993), “Concepts, Meaning, Reference and Ontology: A Reply to Frank Jackson”, in Neander, K. and Ravenscroft, I. (eds.), Prospects for Intentionality, Working Papers in Philosophy 3, produced by the Research School of Social Sciences, ANU, Canberra, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar