more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 5825

[filed under theme 19. Language / B. Reference / 3. Direct Reference / b. Causal reference ]

Full Idea

In general, a speaker intends to refer to the item that is the dominant source of his associated body of information.

Gist of Idea

Speakers intend to refer to items that are the source of their information

Source

Gareth Evans (The Causal Theory of Names [1973], §II)

Book Ref

Evans,Gareth: 'Collected Papers' [OUP 1985], p.17


A Reaction

This sounds like a theory of reference which fully preserves the spirit of traditional empiricism. Speakers refer to ideas which connect to the source of their underlying impressions.


The 23 ideas from Gareth Evans

We must distinguish what the speaker denotes by a name, from what the name denotes [Evans]
The Causal Theory of Names is wrong, since the name 'Madagascar' actually changed denotation [Evans]
The intended referent of a name needs to be the cause of the speaker's information about it [Evans]
If descriptions are sufficient for reference, then I must accept a false reference if the descriptions fit [Evans]
Charity should minimize inexplicable error, rather than maximising true beliefs [Evans]
We use expressions 'deferentially', to conform to the use of other people [Evans]
Speakers intend to refer to items that are the source of their information [Evans]
How can an expression be a name, if names can change their denotation? [Evans]
A private intention won't give a name a denotation; the practice needs it to be made public [Evans]
The Homunculus Fallacy explains a subject perceiving objects by repeating the problem internally [Evans]
'Superficial' contingency: false in some world; 'Deep' contingency: no obvious verification [Evans, by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro]
Rigid designators can be meaningful even if empty [Evans, by Mackie,P]
Evans argues (falsely!) that a contradiction follows from treating objects as vague [Evans, by Lowe]
Is it coherent that reality is vague, identities can be vague, and objects can have fuzzy boundaries? [Evans]
Evans assumes there can be vague identity statements, and that his proof cannot be right [Evans, by Lewis]
There clearly are vague identity statements, and Evans's argument has a false conclusion [Evans, by Lewis]
If a=b is indeterminate, then a=/=b, and so there cannot be indeterminate identity [Evans, by Thomasson]
There can't be vague identity; a and b must differ, since a, unlike b, is only vaguely the same as b [Evans, by PG]
Experiences have no conceptual content [Evans, by Greco]
Some representational states, like perception, may be nonconceptual [Evans, by Schulte]
Concepts have a 'Generality Constraint', that we must know how predicates apply to them [Evans, by Peacocke]
We have far fewer colour concepts than we have discriminations of colour [Evans]
The Generality Constraint says if you can think a predicate you can apply it to anything [Evans]