Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:51:35.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reason, Reference, and the Quest for Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Dudley Shapere
Dudley Shapere*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the “causal theory of reference”, according to which science aims at the discovery of “essences” which are the objects of reference of natural kind terms (among others). This theory has been advanced as an alternative to traditional views of “meaning”, on which a number of philosophical accounts of science have relied, and which have been criticized earlier by the present author. However, this newer theory of reference is shown to be equally subject to fatal internal difficulties, and to be incompatible with actual science as well. Indeed, it rests on assumptions which it shares with the purportedly opposing theory of meaning. Behind those common assumptions is the supposition that the nature of science can be illuminated by an examination of alleged necessities of language which are independent of the results and methods of scientific inquiry. An alternative view of science is proposed, according to which the goals and language of science develop as integral parts of the process of demarcating science from non-science, a process in which the notion of a “reason” gradually assumes a decisive role. On this view, the comparability, competition, and development of scientific ideas are understood without reliance on either common “meanings” or common “references” as fundamental tools of analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © 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

†

I am grateful for the opportunity to have visited at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, in 1981, during which time this paper was written. An earlier and longer version was presented at the International Symposium on Philosophy, Querétaro, Mexico, in August, 1980.

References

REFERENCES

Kripke, S. (1977), “Identity and Necessity”, in Schwartz, S. (ed.), Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds: 66–101. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Margalit, A. (1979), “Sense and Science”, in Saarinen, E., et. al. (eds.), Essays in Honour of Jaakko Hintikka: 17–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1973), “Explanation and Reference”, in Pearce, G., and Maynard, P. (eds.), Conceptual Change: 199–221. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1977), “Meaning and Reference”, in Schwartz, S. (ed.), Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds: 119–132. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1979), Philosophical Papers, Vol. II: Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1964), “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Philosophical Review 73: 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1966), “Meaning and Scientific Change”, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Mind and Cosmos: 41–85. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1969), “Notes Toward a Post-Positivistic Interpretation of Science”, in Achinstein, P., and Barker, S. (eds.), The Legacy of Logical Positivism: 115–160. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1971), “The Paradigm Concept”, Science 172: 706–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1974a), “On the Relations Between Compositional and Evolutionary Theories”, in Ayala, F., and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1974b), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains”, in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories: 518–565. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1977), “The Influence of Knowledge on the Description of Facts”, in Suppe, F., and Asquith, P. (eds.) PSA 1976: 281–298. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1980), “The Character of Scientific Change”, in Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality: 61–116. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1981), “The Scope and Limits of Scientific Change”, in Cohen, L. J., et. al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VI, forthcoming. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (forthcoming), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.”Google Scholar