Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T10:17:15.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Essentialism Unscientific?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Jarrett Leplin
Jarrett Leplin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper defends the Causal Theory of Reference against the recent criticism that it imposes a priori constraints on the aims and practices of science. The metaphysical essentialism of this theory is shown to be compatible with the requirements of naturalistic epistemology. The theory is nevertheless unable to forestall the problem of incommensurability for scientific terms, because it misrepresents the conditions under which their reference is fixed. The resources of the Causal Theory of Reference and of the traditional cluster or “network” theory of meaning for handling problems of commensurability are compared, and an alternative approach is recommended.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 1988, pp. 493 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Enfield, P. (1985), Review of Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories by Nancy J. Nersessian, Philosophy of Science 52: 641–642.10.1086/289283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L.; Barker, P.; Brown, H.; Donovan, A.; Laudan, R.; Leplin, J.; Thagard, P.; and Wykstra, S. (1986), “Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research”, Synthese 69: 141–225.10.1007/BF00413981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1979), “Reference and Scientific Realism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 265–285.10.1016/0039-3681(79)90016-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1984), “Truth and Scientific Progress”, in J. Leplin (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 193–218.10.1525/9780520337442-011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1987), Review of Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories by Nancy J. Nersessian, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 575–577.10.1093/bjps/38.4.575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, N. (1984), Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-009-6187-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975a), “Explanation and Reference”, in H. Putnam, Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–215.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975b), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning‘”, in H. Putnam, Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–272.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1977), “Meaning and Reference”, in S. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 119–133.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1980), “The Character of Scientific Change”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 61–102.10.1007/978-94-009-8986-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1982), “Reason, Reference, and the Quest for Knowledge”, Philosophy of Science 49: 1–24.10.1086/289031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1984), Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1985), “Objectivity, Rationality, and Scientific Change”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984, vol. 2. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 637–664.Google Scholar