Saving incommensurability : semantic theory of meaning or semantic theory of science ?

Le Bihan, Soazig. "Saving incommensurability : semantic theory of meaning or semantic theory of science ?." Philosophia Scientiae 8.1 (2004): 97-105. <http://eudml.org/doc/103720>.

@article{LeBihan2004,
abstract = {Carrier’s paper is mainly a defence of incommensurability as “a sensible notion”, on the basis of the context theory of meaning. I shall here discuss his semantic reconstruction of the notion. His argument consists in exhibiting cases where incommensurability is instantiated thanks to a symmetrical proof of untranslatability, based on a distinction between two determinants of the meaning of a concept. I shall mainly show that a logical asymmetry in the distinction hinders the argument from achieving its goal. I shall then defend that a notion that plays a secondary role in Carrier’s argument, i.e. “the set of situation to which a concept is properly applied”, should be placed at centre stage for the determination of the meaning of a concept and thence for the appraisal of the notion of incommensurability. I shall finally sketch an alternative reconstruction of the notion of incommensurability, based on the semantic view of science instead of the semantic theory of meaning.},
author = {Le Bihan, Soazig},
journal = {Philosophia Scientiae},
language = {eng},
number = {1},
pages = {97-105},
publisher = {Éditions Kimé},
title = {Saving incommensurability : semantic theory of meaning or semantic theory of science ?},
url = {http://eudml.org/doc/103720},
volume = {8},
year = {2004},
}

TY - JOUR
AU - Le Bihan, Soazig
TI - Saving incommensurability : semantic theory of meaning or semantic theory of science ?
JO - Philosophia Scientiae
PY - 2004
PB - Éditions Kimé
VL - 8
IS - 1
SP - 97
EP - 105
AB - Carrier’s paper is mainly a defence of incommensurability as “a sensible notion”, on the basis of the context theory of meaning. I shall here discuss his semantic reconstruction of the notion. His argument consists in exhibiting cases where incommensurability is instantiated thanks to a symmetrical proof of untranslatability, based on a distinction between two determinants of the meaning of a concept. I shall mainly show that a logical asymmetry in the distinction hinders the argument from achieving its goal. I shall then defend that a notion that plays a secondary role in Carrier’s argument, i.e. “the set of situation to which a concept is properly applied”, should be placed at centre stage for the determination of the meaning of a concept and thence for the appraisal of the notion of incommensurability. I shall finally sketch an alternative reconstruction of the notion of incommensurability, based on the semantic view of science instead of the semantic theory of meaning.
LA - eng
UR - http://eudml.org/doc/103720
ER -