Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:25:51.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the Pessimistic Induction to Semantic Antirealism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Greg Frost-Arnold
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Pessimistic Induction (PI) states: most past scientific theories were radically mistaken; therefore, current theories are probably similarly mistaken. But mistaken in what way? On the usual understanding, such past theories are false. However, on widely held views about reference and presupposition, many theoretical claims of previous scientific theories are neither true nor false. And if substantial portions of past theories are truth-valueless, then the PI leads to semantic antirealism. But most current philosophers of science reject semantic antirealism. So PI proponents face a difficult choice: accept either semantic antirealism or an unorthodox position on reference and presupposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1131 - 1142
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

‡

Thanks to audiences at the University of Utah; the University of California, San Diego; and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for very helpful comments on earlier versions of the ideas presented here.

References

Atlas, Jay David. 1989. Philosophy without Ambiguity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Braun, David. 1993. “Empty Names.” Nous 27:449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1974. “Truth and Singular Terms.” Nous 8:309–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1999. “Presupposition-Cancellation and Metalinguistic Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 35:347–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1999. “Negation, ‘Presupposition’ and Metarepresentation: A Response to Noel Burton-Roberts.” Journal of Linguistics 35:365–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2003. “Preservative Realism and Its Discontents: Revisiting Caloric.” Philosophy of Science 70:902–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith. 1974. “Speaking of Nothing.” Philosophical Review 83:3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, and Fine, Arthur. 1977. “Against Indeterminacy.” Journal of Philosophy 74:535–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Anthony. 2003. “Empty Names and ‘Gappy’ Propositions.” Philosophical Studies 116:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1973. “Theory Change and Indeterminacy of Reference.” Journal of Philosophy 70:462–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892/1997. “On Sense and Reference.” In The Frege Reader, ed. Beaney, Michael. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, Michael. 2005. “Presuppositions, Truth Values, and Expressing Propositions.” In Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth, ed. Preyer, G. and Peter, G., 349–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, Clyde, and Rosenberg, Alexander. 1982. “In Defense of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 49:604–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angela. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, Larry. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Language 61:121–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPorte, Joseph. 2004. Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. “The Temperature Paradox as Evidence for a Presuppositional Analysis of Definite Descriptions.” Linguistic Inquiry 36:127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48:19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Graham. 1998. “What's So Bad about Contradictions?” Journal of Philosophy 95:410–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks the Truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reimer, Marga. 2001. “The Problem of Empty Names.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79:491–506.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1986. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. Vol. 8, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and Other Essays, 1914–1919, ed. Slater, John G.. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sankey, Howard. 1991. “Incommensurability, Translation, and Understanding.” Philosophical Quarterly 41:414–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1989. “Presupposition.” In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, Topics in the Philosophy of Language, ed. Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. Munitz, M. K. and Unger, P. K., 197–213. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ken. 2000. “Emptiness without Compromise.” In Empty Names, Fiction and the Puzzles of Non-existence, ed. Everett, Anthony and Hofweber, Thomas, 17–36. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2004. “Would You Believe It? The King of France Is Back.” In Descriptions and Beyond, ed. Reimer, Marga and Bezuidenhout, Anne, 269–96. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar