Watered down essences and elusive speech communities: two objections against Putnam’s twin earth argument

Witold M. Hensel

doi:10.18778/1689-4286.38.03

Authors

Witold M. Hensel University of Białystok

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.38.03

Keywords:

externalism, Twin Earth argument, natural-kind terms, qua problem, interest relativity, speech community

Abstract

The paper presents two objections against Putnam’s Twin Earth argument, which was intended to secure semantic externalism. I first claim that Putnam’s reasoning rests on two assumptions and then try to show why these assumptions are contentious. The first objection is that, given what we know about science, it is unlikely that there are any natural-kind terms whose extension is codetermined by a small set of microstructures required by Putnam’s indexical account of extension determination. The second objection is that there may not be a plausible concept of a speech community whose adoption would classify Oscar and Twin Oscar as members of different speech communities and, at the same time, render Oscar and Twin Oscar as being in the same psychological state. I contend that Putnam’s argument fails because both objections are justified.

References

Chambers, J. K. (1980). Linguistic Variation and Chomsky’s “Homogenous Speech Community”. In M. Kinloch, A. B. House (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association (1-32). Fredericton: University of New Brunswick.

Chambers, J. K. (2002). Studying Language Variation: An Informal Epistemology. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (3-13). Oxford: Blackwell (1st edition). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116923.2003.00002.x

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0616323

Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937

Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting Biological Essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75, 344-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/593566

Genone, J., Lambrozo, T. (2012). Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference. Philosophical Psychology, 25 (5), 714-741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.627538

Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The Speech Community. In D. L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (381-386). New York: Macmillan.

Häggqvist, S., Wikforss, Å. (forthcoming). Natural Kinds and Natural Kind Terms: Myth and Reality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Hendry, R. F. (2005). Lavoisier and Mendeleev on the elements. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 31-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FOCH.0000042886.65679.4e

Korman, D. Z. (2016). What Externalists Should Say About Dry Earth? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(10), 503-520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20061031030

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lambrozo, T., Gwynne, N. Z. (2014). Explanation and Inference: Mechanistic and Functional Explanations Guide Property Generalization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00700

Needham, P. (2000). What is Water? Analysis, 60(265), 13-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/60.1.13

Patrick, P. L. (2003). The Speech Community. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (573-597). Oxford: Blackwell (1st edition). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116923.2003.00031.x

Putnam, H. (1975). The Meaning of “Meaning”. In K. Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge (131-193). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Shtulman, A., Schulz, L. (2008). The Relation Between Essentialist Beliefs and Evolutionary Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32, 1049-1062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801897864

Taylor, H., Vickers, P. (2017). Conceptual Fragmentation and the Rise of Eliminativism. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 17-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0136-2

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell (5th edition).

Zemach, E. (1976). Putnam’s Theory on the Reference of Substance Terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 73 (5), 116-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2025740