more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
So-called ostensive definitions need not literally involve ostension, e.g. pointing, but they must involve genuine reference of some sort (in this case reference to a sample of water).
Gist of Idea
Ostensive definitions needn't involve pointing, but must refer to something specific
Source
Nathan Salmon (Reference and Essence (1st edn) [1981], 4.11.2)
Book Ref
Salmon,Nathan: 'Reference and Essence (2nd ed)' [Prometheus 2005], p.101
| 18886 | Frege's 'sense' solves four tricky puzzles [Salmon,N] |
| 18887 | The perfect case of direct reference is a variable which has been assigned a value [Salmon,N] |
| 14627 | S4, and therefore S5, are invalid for metaphysical modality [Salmon,N, by Williamson] |
| 18888 | Essentialism says some properties must be possessed, if a thing is to exist [Salmon,N] |
| 18889 | Ostensive definitions needn't involve pointing, but must refer to something specific [Salmon,N] |
| 18891 | Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different [Salmon,N] |