Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T15:10:52.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Theory-Change and Meaning-Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Michael E. Levin
Michael E. Levin*
Affiliation:
The City College of the City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue against the currently popular view that a radical change in theory affects the meaning of theoretical terms, and hence render pre- and post-shift theories incomparable. I first show how to pose the meaning-change issue without appeal to meanings reified. I contend that arguments against theory-neutral observation languages are faulty, but that even if they were sound, there are semantic devices that allow a theory to refer to the factual basis of a competitor. This suggests a picture of science as the accumulation of truths, with each successive stage being more stable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 407 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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 wish to thank Martin Tamny, my wife Margarita, and an especially thorough referee, for their assistance.

References

Donnellan, K. (1966), “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1974), “Speaking of Nothing.” Philosophical Review 83: 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. and Fine, A. (1977), “Against Indeterminacy.” Journal of Philosophy 74: 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, G. (1966), “Physics and the Thales Problem.” Journal of Philosophy 63: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (1973), “Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Translation.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 462–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstick, D. (1971), “Methodological Conservatism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 8: 186–191.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1969), “Reduction: Ontological and Linguistic Facets.” In Morgenbesser, S., Suppes, P. and White, M., (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Method. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972), “Naming and Necessity.” In Harman, G. and Davidson, D., (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. New York: Humanities.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1977), “Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. (1971), “Length Relativity.” Journal of Philosophy 68: 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. (1975), “Relativity, Spatial and Ontological.” Nous 9: 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. (1978), “Quine's View(s) of Logical Truth.” Southwest Journal of Philosophy 9: 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. (1979a), Metaphysics and the Mind-Body Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, M. (1979b), “Forcing and the Indeterminacy of Translation.” Erkenntnis 14: 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. and Levin, M. (1978), “The Independence Results of Set Theory: An Informal Exposition.” Synthese 38: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1971), “Referential Variance and Scientific Objectivity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1972), “Ontological Variance and Scientific Objectivity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23: 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1975), “Methodological Conservatism.” Philosophical Review 84: 374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1964), Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. (trans.) Anscombe, G.E.M. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar