According to a common line of criticism, Donald Davidson’s argument in “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” is invalid because it moves illicitly from the relatively weak thesis that conceptual schemes cannot be incommensurable to the stronger thesis that the idea of a conceptual scheme itself is incoherent. I argue in this paper that such objections fail because they misunderstand the position that Davidson’s argument is intended to rule out. According to the “scheme-content dualism” Davidson targets, conceptual schemes (...) differ only if they are incommensurable with one another. Thus, if Davidson has successfully shown the idea of incommensurability to be incoherent, then he has shown “the very idea of a conceptual scheme” to be incoherent, as well. (shrink)

According to the received translational interpretation of incommensurability, incommensurability is viewed as untranslatability due to radical variance of meaning or reference of the terms in two competing scientific languages. The author argues that the translational approach to incommensurability does not effectively clarify the concept of incommensurability. Since it cannot provide us with tenable, integrated concept of incommensurability, it should be rejected.

A reconstruction of Kant’s Copernican Revolution is given using the linguistic version of conceptual schemes together with mathematical tools from Model Theory. In response to Davidson’s criticisms against conceptual relativism, untranslatable conceptual schemes are shown to exist. Arguments from the Tractatus are used to formulate the conditions required for an isomorphism between a representation and the structure of reality. It is argued that the scientific accuracy of a representation does not require a structural isomorphism with reality. Finally, a conception of (...) the in-itself is articulated using the Yoneda embedding from Category Theory. (shrink)