Brandom (Citation1994) made inferentialism an intensely debated idea in the philosophy of language in the last three decades. Inferentialism is a view that associates the meaning of linguistic expression with the role said expression plays in inferences. It seems rather uncontroversial that the correct theory of meaning should distinguish between linguistic correctness and factual correctness. For instance, speaker S can be wrong in saying ‘I have arthritis’ in two distinct ways: (i) S fails to apply a word correctly to make (...) a true statement due to having made a factual error, and (ii) S uses an expression incorrectly because they are wrong about its meaning. In this paper, I show that properly understood normative inferentialism can make room for such a distinction. I propose that linguistic correctness is a structural issue: linguistic mistakes stem from the improper or insufficient acquisition of an inferential role. Factual correctness, on the other hand, is a one-off issue of the correct application of inferential rules to a particular situation. I argue that, by tying the issue of correctness to the game of giving and asking for reasons, inferentialism can establish a reliable method for distinguishing between two types of correctness (and mistakes). (shrink)

To the extent that William James had an account of ‘meaning,’ it is best captured in his “pragmatic maxim”, but James’s maxim has notoriously been open to many conflicting interpretations. It will be argued here that some of these interpretive difficulties stem from the fact that (1) James seriously understates the differences between his own views and those presented by Peirce in “How to Make our Ideas Clear”, and (2) James’s understanding of the maxim typically ties meaning to truth, but (...) since James takes “truth” talk to stretch from “temporary” to “absolute” truth, a similar ‘elasticity’ can be found in his conception of meaning. However, this ‘elasticity’ is found in our everyday talk of meaning as well, and James manages to capture it in a more cohesive way than more contemporary accounts that often try to do so by positing two completely distinct types of meaning or content. (shrink)

According to standard assumptions in semantics, ordinary users of a language have implicit beliefs about the truth-conditions of sentences in that language, and they often agree on those beliefs. For example, it is assumed that if Anna and John are both competent users of English and the former utters ‘grass is green’ in conversation with the latter, they will both believe that that sentence is true if and only if grass is green. These assumptions play an important role in an (...) intuitively compelling picture of communication, according to which successful communication through literal assertoric utterances is normally effected thanks to our shared beliefs about the truth-conditions of the sentences uttered in the course of the conversation. Against these standard assumptions, this paper argues that the participants in a conversation rarely have the same beliefs about the truth-conditions of the sentences involved in a linguistic interaction. More precisely, it argues for Variance, the thesis that nearly every utterance is such that there is no proposition which more than one language user believes to be that utterance’s truth-conditional content. If Variance is true, we must reject the standard picture of communication. Towards the end of the paper I identify three ways in which ordinary conversations can be communication-like despite the truth of Variance and argue that the most natural amendments to the standard picture fail to explain them. (shrink)

The normative and metanormative pluralism that figures among core self-descriptions of democratic theory, which seems incompatible with democratic theorists’ practical ambitions, may stem from the internal logic of research traditions in the social sciences and humanities and in the conceptual structure of political theory itself. One way to deal productively with intradisciplinary diversity is to appeal to the idea of a meta-consensus; another is to appeal to the argument from cognitive diversity that fuels recent debates on epistemic democracy. For different (...) reasons, both strategies fail, such that a metatheoretical step aside may be desirable, one that entails modeling democratic theory after the public justification approach. (shrink)

Some philosophers claim that propositions are simple—i.e., lack parts. In this paper, I argue that this claim is mistaken. I start with the widely accepted claim that propositions are the objects of beliefs. Then I argue that the objects of beliefs have parts. Thus, I conclude that propositions are not simple. My argument for the claim that the objects of beliefs have parts derives from the fact that beliefs are productive and systematic. This fact lurks in the background of debates (...) about the metaphysics of propositions. But its import for these debates has yet to be fully appreciated. So here I bring the point to the fore, and thus make manifest a powerful argument against simple propositions. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate the nature of the relation between meaning-interdependence and analyticity. The theory within which meaning-interdependence reaches its peak and becomes omnipresent is meaning holism, according to which every two expressions are meaning-interdependent. A lot of people reject holism partially due to the impression that the theory leads to the picture in which language is self-sufficient in the sense that it is nothing but a game of meanings which is detached from reality. What stands behind that impression (...) is probably something along the lines: analyticity stems from meaning-interdependence, so if all expressions are meaning-interdependent, then everything appears analytic. I defend holism from this kind of objection. I start with showing that analyticity traditionally understood cannot pour over language within holism, because it is not applicable to the theory at all. Then, I argue that adopting some weaker notion of analyticity leads to the ubiquity of analyticity indeed, but analyticity so understood is too weak to actually endanger holism. Finally, I demonstrate that the problems with analyticity appear only when meaning-interdependence is treated in extremely superficial way. I also propose a very simple hierarchy of meaning-interdependence, based on Pagin’s total-pair holism, which immediately repeal the ‘ubiquitous analyticity’ problem. (shrink)

Introduction The Publication of Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most important points in the history and philosophy of science studies and has raised many debates among philosophers and historians of science. One of the most interesting implications of Kuhn’s thesis is the incommensurability of scientific paradigms and its related concepts. Paul Thagard is one of the philosophers who reacted to Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis and tried to show how, by appealing to cognitive computational theories, (...) the incommensurability problem could be resolved. In this essay, after introducing Thagard’s Conceptual Change Theory and review of one case study, we will survey the implications of Thagard’s theory on scientific growth and the history of science and present two critiques. Summary In this essay, in the first part, we have tried, by the introduction of concept constituents and representation based on Thagard’s Computational Philosophy of Science to show how he explains conceptual changes and revolutions in the history of science. Thagard considered concepts as complex structures like neurons in neural networks which are organized in kind and part hierarchies and relating to each other by relevant weight. Thagard described four types of relations between replacement and substituent theories: incorporation, sublation, supplantation, and disregard. Sublation and supplantation are the important types of theory change processes that have been introduced by Thagard to describe scientific revolution. If T1 partially incorporates T1 while rejecting aspects of T1, then T2 sublatesTl and if T2 involves the near-total rejection of TI, then T2 supplants T1. As Thagard claimed, other than disregard, all of the other three types of scientific theory change accept some degree of cumulating in substituent theory. As we have reviewed in Thagard’s case studies, which he referred to as radical conceptual revolutions; such as Lavasiour and Darwin’s revolution, there is at least some amount of evidence and method cumulating in substituent theory. On the other hand, it could be interpreted that Thagard somehow accepted the semantic holism theory. In this paper, an argument has been posed which shows that these two claims are contradicted. The premises and conclusions of the argument are shown as below: 1. According to the holism theory of meaning, the meanings of concepts are determined by their relation in a conceptual web or hierarchy. 2. It could be interpreted that Thagard confirmed the holism theory of meaning. 3. Scientific Revolutions –either occurring as sublation or supplantation way – make dramatic changes in the conceptual hierarchy of existing theory in comparison with substituent theory. 4. Thagard declared that in the dramatic scientific revolution, there are at least some method and concepts 5. Thagard stated that evidence could be evaluated independently. In other words, he denies the theory dependency of evidence. 6. Premises1, 2 and 3 are contradicted by 4 and 5. Because, by accepting the holism theory of meaning, there is no way to evaluate apparent common evidence of rival theories independently without considering their relation to existing and substituent theories. Thagard and some other philosophers like Nancy Nersissian claimed that Thomas Kuhn’s mistake is that he has not considered the gradual nature of conceptual changes which has been revealed with the help of cognitive science. They believe that in the theory change stage a gestalt shift is not occurring as Thomas Kuhn thought, for practitioners and advocates of existing and substituent theories or paradigm’s, so there is not a sharp and clear boundary between rival theories and advocates of each theory could realize each other’s experiments. As a final point, we will show by review of a historical case – the Quantum Mechanic revolution- that the gradual nature of scientific change would not imply that there is not a boundary at all and in principle it could be conceived a final point -albeit not clear- existing theory totally replaced by substituent theory and practitioners of new theory conform their mind by the exemplar, method and tradition of a new theory. Conclusion In this paper, we study Thagard’s theory concerning concept structure, representation, and conceptual change. After review of an important case study, we reviewed four types of possible relations between existing and substitute theories. As it has been shown, Thagard believed that at least evidence and methods accumulation take place even in radical revolutionary theory change. By providing an argument, we have tried to show that the holism theory of meaning, which seems to be accepted by Thagard, is contradicted by evidence accumulation. On the other hand, by reviewing a historical case-study we have tried to show that Thagard’s argument against the gestalt shift theory of Kuhn, is confronted by a problem. (shrink)

This paper provides a perspective on where contemporary Muslim responses to biomedical-ethical issues stand to date. There are several ways in which Muslim responses to biomedical ethics can and have been studied in academia. The responses are commonly divided along denominational lines or under the schools of jurisprudence. All such efforts classify the responses along the lines of communities of interpretation rather than the methods of interpretation. This research is interested in the latter. Thus, our criterion for classification is the (...) underlying methodology behind the responses. The proposed classification divides Muslim biomedical-ethical reasoning into three methodological categories: 1) textual, 2) contextual, and 3) para-textual. (shrink)

Meaning Holism and Contextualism are standardly acknowledged to be similar relativistic theories that often lead to similar troubles, in particular to issues concerning instability. On the other hand, the main rival of Contextualism, which is Minimalism, is taken to be resistant to these problems. In effect, it seems inevitable to see Meaning Holism and Minimalism as natural enemies. In my paper, I attempt to reject such a view. My argumentation consists of three main parts. First, I argue that Minimalism does (...) not differ that much from Meaning Holism with respect to the instability issues as it also faces some of them (although in a slightly different way from the case of Holism of Contextualism). Second, I put forward several arguments to show that in fact Minimalism is not incompatible with the two versions of Meaning Holism I distinguish, namely Global Holism and Local Holism. I argue that a meaning holist has to accept some not uncontroversial principles to become an anti- minimalist – and vice versa. Finally, I demonstrate that Minimalism and Meaning Holism can be reconciled. Such a possibility occurs when something I called ‘purely semantic processes’ is allowed. The role of these processes is, roughly speaking, to protect literal meanings from being affected by strong pragmatic factors. (shrink)

El holismo semántico es una teoría que está relacionada con los significados que se atribuyen a las palabras y sus relaciones con otras palabras en una lengua. En este trabajo se propone rehabilitar el holismo semántico como una posición filosófica razonable y presentar una versión del holismo semántico desarrollada por Henry Jackman – llamada “holismo semántico moderado”. Esta teoría es capaz de explicar algunos fenómenos lingüísticos, como la vaguedad, polisemia y ambigüedad, haciendo del holismo moderado una teoría útil no sólo (...) para la filosofía del lenguaje, sino también para los estudios de semántica lingüística. (shrink)