Full Idea
While I agree that the usual cause of the use of the word determines what it means, I do not see why sameness of microstructure is necessarily the relevant similarity that determines my reference of the word 'water'.
Gist of Idea
The cause of a usage determines meaning, but why is the microstructure of water relevant?
Source
Donald Davidson (Epistemology Externalized [1990], p.198)
Book Reference
Davidson,Donald: 'Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective' [OUP 2001], p.198
A Reaction
This is a problem for essentialists who build their views on semantic considerations. But the stability of what causes 'water' thoughts is the microstructure of water. However, that is an explantion of meaning, not a definition of it.