Modelling became one of the primary tools of economic research in the 20th century and economists understand their mathematical models as giving some kind of representation of the economic world, one adequate enough for the purpose of reasoning about that world. But when we look at examples of how non-analogical models were first built in economics, both the process of making representations and aspects of the representing relation remain opaque. Like early astronomers, economists have to imagine how the hidden parts (...) of their world are arranged and to make images, that is, create models, to represent how they work. The case of the Edgeworth Box, a widely used model in 20th century economics, provides a good example to explore the role of imagination and images in the process of making representations of the economy. (shrink)

One of the most important problems for a study of symbolic practices (pictorial, verbal or other) is the choice of a language of description that is general enough to allow for comparisons between different symbolic practices and specific enough to allow for meaningful descriptions of actual practices. I will argue that Goodman’s theory of symbols provides some of the categories needed for such an analysis. I will try to indicate this by looking at Goodman’s analysis of a symbolic practice that (...) – though widely used in many different kinds of discourse – has generally not received much attention: the giving of examples. Goodman’s extensional description of exemplification allows us to differentiate between various types of examples and to determine what we mean when we say that examples ‘show’ something. In this way, conflicting approaches to the question of examples (namely Kant and Wittgenstein) can be seen as complementary. A theory of symbols can operate these clarifications by virtue of its strict extensionalism. (shrink)

This paper argues for a rearticulation of the theory of truthmaking within pragmatism. The concept of truthmaking has usually been employed by metaphysical realists, but it can be reinterpreted in a pragmatist manner, following both classical and more recent pragmatists’ ideas on the “making of truth” as a process within human experience and world-categorization. Thus, a pragmatist criticism of metaphysical realism can be extended to the core areas of realist metaphysics, including the truthmaking theory.

In the present paper, I try to defend a coherent interpretation of Goodman’s relativism by responding to the main objections of the critics. I also discuss the significance of his pluralism by relating it to the notion of construction. This will show the relevance of Goodman’s philosophy for the present days.

La présente théorie tente de mettre en lumière notre compréhension et notre utilisation de la notion de vérité. Elle rejoint certains points de vue de Putnam et de Goodman, mais les développe en estimant que la vérité est une affirmation qui correspond à un ou à plusieurs des paramètres suivants : critère de la cohérence intérieure ; données sensorielles ; données de la mémoire ; croyances non-verbalisées ; autres parties du discours. La structure cognitive générale – qui, d’après Ray Jackendoff, (...) sert de point de convergence à la signification transmise par le langage, la connaissance d’arrière-plan, la perception, la déduction etc. – est identifiée comme intermédiaire de cette correspondance qui entraîne l’effet cognitif : « c’est vrai ». Cette théorie affirme en outre que la vérité est une famille de notions qui englobe différentes sortes de vérités. Il est souligné que la vérité comporte une dimension normative qui s’explique comme la possibilité de défier les affirmations prétendant à la vérité, ce qui suppose un idéal régulateur de la rationalité universelle de l’homme. (shrink)