RELATIVISM, COMMENSURABILITY AND TRANSLATABILITY
Author: Glock, Hans-Johann1
Source: Ratio, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2007 , pp. 377-402(26)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
Key: - Free Content - New Content - Subscribed Content - Free Trial Content
Abstract:
This paper discusses conceptual relativism. The main focus is on the contrasting ideas of Wittgenstein and Davidson, with Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Hacker in supporting roles. I distinguish conceptual from alethic and ontological relativism, defend a distinction between conceptual scheme and empirical content, and reject the Davidsonian argument against the possibility of alternative conceptual schemes: there can be conceptual diversity without failure of translation, and failure of translation is not necessarily incompatible with recognizing a practice as linguistic. Conceptual relativism may be untenable, but not for the hermeneutic reasons espoused by Davidson.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2007.00374.x
Affiliations: 1: Philosophisches SeminarUniversität ZürichZürichbergstrasse 43CH-8044 Zürich, Email: glock@philos.uzh.ch
Here
Showing posts with label Kuhn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kuhn. Show all posts
Article: Thomas Kuhn, Commensurability, comparability, communicability.
Thomas Kuhn, Commensurability, comparability, communicability.
Abstract
The author's concept of incommensurability is explicated by elaborating the claim that some terms essential to the formulation of older theories defy translation into the language of more recent ones. Defense of this claim rests on the distinction between interpreting a theory in a later language and translating the theory into it. The former is both possible and essential, the latter neither. The interpretation/translation distinction is then applied to Kitcher's critique of incommensurability and Quine's conception of a translation manual, both of which take reference-preservation as the sole semantic criterion of translational adequacy. The paper concludes by enquiring about the additional criteria a successful translation must satisfy.
Here.
Abstract
The author's concept of incommensurability is explicated by elaborating the claim that some terms essential to the formulation of older theories defy translation into the language of more recent ones. Defense of this claim rests on the distinction between interpreting a theory in a later language and translating the theory into it. The former is both possible and essential, the latter neither. The interpretation/translation distinction is then applied to Kitcher's critique of incommensurability and Quine's conception of a translation manual, both of which take reference-preservation as the sole semantic criterion of translational adequacy. The paper concludes by enquiring about the additional criteria a successful translation must satisfy.
Here.
