more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 8873

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 5. Reference to Natural Kinds ]

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 Ref

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.


The 13 ideas with the same theme [how language terms refer to natural kinds]:

The names of all the types of creature were given forever by Adam [Anon (Tor)]
Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms [Putnam, by Mackie,P]
Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum) [Putnam]
"Water" is a natural kind term, but "H2O" is a description [Putnam]
The cause of a usage determines meaning, but why is the microstructure of water relevant? [Davidson]
The properties that fix reference are contingent, the properties involving meaning are necessary [Kripke]
Terms for natural kinds are very close to proper names [Kripke]
Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different [Salmon,N]
Nouns seem to invoke stable kinds more than predicates do [Gelman]
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name [Bird]
Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition [Bird]
Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions [Bird]
Should vernacular classifications ever be counted as natural kind terms? [Koslicki]