Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

\title {Central Themes in Philosophy \\ Lecture 11}
 
\maketitle
 

Lecture 11:

Central Themes

\def \ititle {Lecture 11}
\def \isubtitle {Central Themes}
\begin{center}
{\Large
\textbf{\ititle}: \isubtitle
}
 
\iemail %
\end{center}
 
\section{Meaning Is Reference}
 
\section{Meaning Is Reference}

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

bad question!

‘entities such as meanings ...
are not of independent interest’

\citep[p.~154]{Davidson:1974gh}

Davidson, 1974 p. 154

independent of what?

Why?

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’
is true because Earth is being warmed by human activity.

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’
is false because Mars is not being warmed by human activity.

Here is a true utterance.
...and here is a false utterance.
What makes for this difference between the two utterances? Why is one true but the other false? This is an easy question to answer, I think ...
Now for a much harder question ...
Now for a much harder question: Why is ’s’ true because p? How does it come about that this is what makes the utterance true?
Why is this amazing? (You might think it’s too obvious to be amazing, but some philosophy is about finding the amazing in the obvious.)
this is a fact about humans
this is a fact about words
yet they are causally linked
in the strong sense that if I intervene on the humans, I change the fact about the words!

Why?

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’
is true because Earth is being warmed by human activity.

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’
is false because Mars is not being warmed by human activity.

I want to mention a clue so obvious that it is easy to overlook.
Think about the two utterances, how one has this word ‘Earth’ ...
What makes the utterance true or false has to depend on the words the sentence it expresses contains. But what are those words doing? What is it about them which contributes to determining which state of affairs makes the utterance true?

‘entities such as meanings ...
are not of independent interest’

\citep[p.~154]{Davidson:1974gh}

Davidson, 1974 p. 154

independent of what? Of our explanatory interests!

Facts in need of explanation:

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’
is true because Earth is being warmed by human activity.

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’
is false because Mars is not being warmed by human activity.

Postulating attributes of words, call them ‘meanings’, will enable us to explain these facts.

\section{The Question} Consider utterances of the following sentences: \begin{enumerate} \item ‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’ \item ‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’ \end{enumerate} The first depends for it’s truth on how things are with Earth whereas the second depends for its truth on how things are with Mars. Why do the two utterances differ in this way?
\section{Reference} Guess: It is because the utterance of ‘Earth’ stands in some relation to Earth whereas the utterance of ‘Mars’ stands in that relation to Mars.
Terminology: Call this relation ‘reference’.
Question: What is this relation? Is there really any such relation at all?

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

Simple idea: ‘Mars’ means Mars.

The meaning of a word is the thing it is used to refer to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact in need of explanation?

Facts in need of explanation:

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’
is true because Earth is being warmed by human activity.

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’
is false because Mars is not being warmed by human activity.

Postulates about meaning:

‘Earth’ means Earth.

‘Mars’ means Mars.

We cannot explain just by postulating meanings; we also need principles

Principle:

What makes a sentence true somehow depends on what its constituent words mean.

Let’s do it again with new facts ...

Fact in need of explanation:

Steve’s utterance of ‘Touch your nose’ caused me to touch my nose,

whereas

Steve’s utterance of ‘Touch your ear’ caused me to touch my ear.

Behold the extraorinary power of language!

Steve knew that uttering ‘touch your nose’ would cause you to touch your nose (and not your ear).

Postulates about meaning:

???

Principles:

???

nb it’s a fact about knowledge (communication by language is a
activity ...)

Meaning is reference.

[the formal question] What kind of things are meanings?

[the mapping question] In virtue of what does a given word have a particular meaning?

[the linking question] What links the mind and actions of a particular language user to the facts about meaning?

Which if any of these questions does the view that meaning is reference enable us to answer?

Method:

1. Identify a fact which stands in need of explanation.

2. Show that postulating some attribute of words can, together with some principles, provide a candidate explanation of the fact.

Terminology: label the attribute ‘meaning’.

General point:

If you are going to postulate meanings (or referents, or senses, or ...), make sure, minimally, that

you have identified a fact, or some facts, which stand in need of explanation

and that

the meanings can explain the facts.

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

Simple idea: ‘Mars’ means Mars.

The meaning of a word is the thing it is used to refer to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact in need of explanation?

We already asked this question; you can see in outline how it might be answered.

Q2. Is there anything meanings are needed to explain which we cannot explain if we take this view of them?

 

Meaning Isn’t (Only) Reference

 
\section{Meaning Isn’t (Only) Reference}
 
\section{Meaning Isn’t (Only) Reference}

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

The meaning of an utterance of a word is the thing it refers to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact in need of explanation?

We already asked this question; you can see in outline how it might be answered.

Q2. Is there anything meanings are needed to explain which we cannot explain if we take this view of them?

Siegel & Shuster, 1939 (Issue 1)

Lois knows that ‘Superman is superman’ is true.

Lois does not know that ‘Clarke Kent is superman’ is true.

A Simple Observation

\subsection{Observation} If we adopt the view that meaning is reference, then \begin{enumerate} \item ‘Superman’ means superman. \item ‘Clarke Kent’ means Clarke Kent. \end{enumerate} but: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item Superman is Clarke Kent \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item ‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman. \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item ‘Clarke Kent’ and ‘Superman’ do not differ in meaning. \end{enumerate}
If we adopt the view that meaning is reference, ...

1. ‘Superman’ means Superman.

2. ‘Clarke Kent’ means Clarke Kent.

but:

3. Superman is Clarke Kent

therefore (from 2 & 3):

4. ‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman.

therefore (from 1 & 4):

5. ‘Clarke Kent’ and ‘Superman’ do not differ in meaning.

Fact in need of explanation:

Lois knows that ‘Superman is superman’ is true;

but

Lois does not know that ‘Clarke Kent is superman’ is true.

Postulates about meaning:

‘Superman’ means Superman.

‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman.

Is this a mistake? No!

Principle:

What makes a sentence true somehow depends on what its constituent words mean.

Can you see an impending problem?
\subsection{Argument} \begin{enumerate} \item The contrast in what Lois knows about the sentences is a fact in need of explanation. \item The explanation, whatever it is, will hinge on the meanings of the words ‘Superman’ and ‘Clarke Kent’. \item If meaning is reference, this explanation is impossible. \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item Meaning is not, or not only, reference. \end{enumerate} Should we reject a premise or accept the conclusion?

Contrast ‘Superman is Superman’ with ‘Clarke Kent is Superman’

ftbe: Lois may know that one is true but not that the other is.

idea: This difference is due to some difference in the meanings of the words ‘Superman’ and ‘Clarke Kent’.

There could be no such difference if the meaning of a word were merely the thing it refers to.

Conclusion: the meaning of a word is not, or not only, the thing it refers to.

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

The meaning of an utterance of a word is the thing it refers to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact fact in need of explanation?

We already asked this question; you can see in outline how it might be answered.

Q2. Is there anything meanings are needed to explain which we cannot explain if we take this view of them?

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

‘entities such as meanings ...
are not of independent interest’

\citep[p.~154]{Davidson:1974gh}

Davidson, 1974 p. 154

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

Two facts stand in need of explanation.

Facts in need of explanation:

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Earth is being warmed by human activity.’
is true because Earth is being warmed by human activity.

Steve’s Oct 4th, 2018 1.11pm utterance
‘Mars is being warmed by human activity.’
is false because Mars is not being warmed by human activity.

Fact in need of explanation:

Lois knows that ‘Superman is superman’ is true;

but

Lois does not know that ‘Clarke Kent is superman’ is true.

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

Two facts stand in need of explanation.

The simple idea that meaning is reference might enable us to explain the first kind of fact, but probably not the second.

If postulating meanings is supposed to enable us to explain both facts, meaning is not, or not only, reference.

 

Sentences vs Utterances

 
\section{Sentences vs Utterances}
 
\section{Sentences vs Utterances}
Strictly speaking it’s not sentences but utterances which bear truth.

‘You have to turn your headlamps on
when it’s raining in Sweden.’

How do I know it’s raining in Sweden

‘Dogs must be carried.’ / ‘Shoes must be worn.’

‘This recently became my favourite new song.’

Not everyone agrees about this. Consider for instance Devitt and Sterelny’s 1999 textbook.

‘the core of a sentence’s meaning is its truth condition; that is, the property of a sentence which, together with the world, makes it true or false.’

Devitt and Sterelny, 1999 p. 11

But what are utterances?

They’re actions which typically occur in, and are constitutive of, lingiustic communication. Hard to define because not all utterances are communicative.
Part of the point is to avoid distinguishing oral and manual communication.

sentence

Is timeless.

Can be uttered by different people.

Is a structure of words.

Cannot be true or false (strictly speaking).

utterance

Has a date.

Has a particular utterer or utterers.

Is a structure of events.

Can be true or false.