Lecture 01 | Words and Things

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

Our question is one that famous philosophers have been asking for a while ... I want to start by asking you to read these quotes (see handout) and think about them. OBJECTIVE 1 : let’s try to understand them

\section{The Question’s History}

‘there are these objects out there. Here is the mind/brain, carrying on its thinking/computing. How do the thinker’s symbols ... get into a unique correspondence with objects and sets out there?’

\citep[p.~51]{Putnam:1981sw}

Putnam, 1981 p. 51

‘the implication of the thinking situation is of some ‘correspondence’ ... the problem of its nature and valid determination remains the central question of any theory of thinking’

\citep[p.~200]{Dewey:1907ka}

Dewey, 1907 p. 200

‘That truth is the correspondence of a representation with its object is, as Kant says, merely the nominal definition of it. ... But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?’

\citep[p.~390/5.553]{Peirce:1906gu}

Peirce, 1906 p. 390/5.553

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?

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?

\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?

Comparison: Maps

Here’s a cartographic representation of a journey. What makes it the case that this map represents that journey?

correspondence

Why does this map represent that journey?

Because there to exist a certain correspondence relation between features of the map and features of the world.

Discussion: Is this a complete answer? Or is there more to say?

Among all the ways in which features of the map do or might correspond to features of the world,
only some
(maybe just one)
determine what the map represents.

because misrepresentation is possible

Why does this correspondence relation determine what that map represents?

In the case of maps, we might think that it is a kind of stipulation. The person or organisation which creates the map introduces a stipulation about what the map represents.

Our question is one that famous philosophers have been asking for a while ... I want to start by asking you to read these quotes (see handout) and think about them. OBJECTIVE 1 : let’s try to understand them

\section{The Question’s History}

‘there are these objects out there. Here is the mind/brain, carrying on its thinking/computing. How do the thinker’s symbols ... get into a unique correspondence with objects and sets out there?’

\citep[p.~51]{Putnam:1981sw}

Putnam, 1981 p. 51

‘the implication of the thinking situation is of some ‘correspondence’ ... the problem of its nature and valid determination remains the central question of any theory of thinking’

\citep[p.~200]{Dewey:1907ka}

Dewey, 1907 p. 200

‘That truth is the correspondence of a representation with its object is, as Kant says, merely the nominal definition of it. ... But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?’

\citep[p.~390/5.553]{Peirce:1906gu}

Peirce, 1906 p. 390/5.553

Now I think you understand what Peirce is saying

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.

Recall the issue about the sentences.

As in the case of maps, I was asking, Why?

Let me make the comparison explicit ...

maps

utterances

The map is correct or incorrect.

The utterance is true or false.

If correct, the map is correct because part of the world is a certain way.

If true, the utterance is true because part of the world is a certain way.

Q: Why does the world’s being *this* way make the map correct?

Q: Why does the world’s being *this* way make the utterance correct?

Why am I talking about utterances?

Sentences vs Utterances

‘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.

So why think about sentences at all?

Striking fact:

If you understand one utterance of a sentence, you will probably understand other utterances of it. And conversely.

For example (note that different utterances will be about different things):

‘This has just become my favourite new song.’

‘The Persentic of knowledge is so short’ (Hamid 2007)

Questions about
sentences vs utterances?

The Question Simplified

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.

Not back to the main quesiton: why?

Let’s substitute a simpler question. Why do the two utterances differ in this way: one depends for it’s truth on how things are with Earth whereas the other depends for its truth on how things are with Mars.

I guess that might have something to do with these words. But what?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/

An idea, in outline

1. ‘Earth’ refers to Earth

2. An utterance of ‘Mars’ refers to Mars

3. The two utterances differ in what would make them true because of (1) and (2).

What is this reference thing?

But what (if anything) is reference?

Something we postulate to explain the difference between these utterances. (Background: systematic contribution of words)

fact to be explained

Those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other is made true by how things are with Mars.

attempted explanation

‘Earth’ refers to Earth whereas ‘Mars’ refers to Mars.

But what (if anything) is reference?

Davidson : it might not explain anything at all, might be a merely formal thing.

‘Reference, in ordinary parlance, is aboutness.’

Devitt & Hanley, 2008 p. 11

Steve’s utterance is about Earth.

(*!) ‘Earth’ is about Earth.

fact to be explained

Those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other is made true by how things are with Mars.

attempted explanation

‘Earth’ refers to Earth whereas ‘Mars’ refers to Mars.

But what (if anything) is reference?

So I stand by my position. Whether there is any such thing as reference depends on whether we can say something about what it is, and whether what we say does really contribute to a correct explanation of The Difference between those two utterances.

complication: words vs utterances

A single word can be used for an open-ended range of different things.

In the UK, you can name your baby ‘Earth’.

What refers cannot be a word.

Compare: Sentences are not the kind of thing that can be true or false.

1. Words are constituents of sentences.

2. Sentences can be uttered.

3. In uttering a sentence, you utter its constituent words.

4. Reference is a relation linking

utterances of words

to

things.

Clearly lots of philosophers think that words do refer ...

‘What is the mechanism of reference?

‘In other words, in virtue of what does a word (of the referring sort) attach to a particular object/individual?’

‘Reference’, Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy

fact to be explained

Those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other is made true by how things are with Mars.

attempted explanation

‘Earth’ refers to Earth whereas ‘Mars’ refers to Mars.

But what (if anything) is reference?

Strictly speaking we should have been talking about utterances of words.

Why do those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other by how things are with Mars?

Guess: There is some relation between the utterance of ‘Earth’ [the word] and Earth [the thing] in virtue of which Steve’s utterance of the sentence is about Earth rather than Mars.

Terminology: call it ‘reference’

Q: What is this relation?

Our question is one that famous philosophers have been asking for a while ... I want to start by asking you to read these quotes (see handout) and think about them. OBJECTIVE 1 : let’s try to understand them

\section{The Question’s History}

‘there are these objects out there. Here is the mind/brain, carrying on its thinking/computing. How do the thinker’s symbols ... get into a unique correspondence with objects and sets out there?’

\citep[p.~51]{Putnam:1981sw}

Putnam, 1981 p. 51

‘the implication of the thinking situation is of some ‘correspondence’ ... the problem of its nature and valid determination remains the central question of any theory of thinking’

\citep[p.~200]{Dewey:1907ka}

Dewey, 1907 p. 200

‘That truth is the correspondence of a representation with its object is, as Kant says, merely the nominal definition of it. ... But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?’

\citep[p.~390/5.553]{Peirce:1906gu}

Peirce, 1906 p. 390/5.553

I don’t think we yet know what reference is. But I do think we’ve made some progress. Recall OBJECTIVE 1 : let’s try to understand these quotes.

‘there are these objects out there. Here is the mind/brain, carrying on its thinking/computing. How do the thinker’s symbols ... get into a unique correspondence with objects and sets out there?’

Putnam, 1981 p. 51

‘the implication of the thinking situation is of some ‘correspondence’ ... the problem of its nature and valid determination remains the central question of any theory of thinking’

Dewey, 1907 p. 200

‘That truth is the correspondence of a representation with its object is, as Kant says, merely the nominal definition of it. ... But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?’

Peirce, 1906 p. 390/5.553

assessment

Three Theories of Reference

pragamtist idea about reference

\section{Pragmatists on Reference}

‘What the sign virtually has to do in order to indicate its object—and make it its—all it has to do
is just to seize its interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon the object meant:
it is what a knock at the door does, or an alarm or other bell, or a whistle, a cannon-shot, etc.’

\citep[p.~60/5.554]{Peirce:1931av}

Peirce, 1931 p. 60/5.554

Why do those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other by how things are with Mars?

Guess: There is some relation between the utterance of ‘Earth’ [the word] and Earth [the thing] in virtue of which Steve’s utterance of the sentence is about Earth rather than Mars.

Terminology: call it ‘reference’

Q: What is this relation?

A [Pragmatist]:For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for this utterance to sieze the ‘interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon’ Earth.

Take a look at the same core pragmatist idea as expressed by William James ...

‘I say that we know an object by means of an idea whenever we ambulate towards the object under the impulse which the idea communicates’

\citep[p.~140]{James:1909vm}

James, 1909 p. 140

‘The pointing of our thought to the tigers is known simply and solely as a procession of mental associates and motor consequences that follow on the thought, and that would lead harmoniously, if followed out, into some ideal or real context, or even into the immediate presence, of the tigers. … It is even known, if we take the tigers very seriously, as actions of ours which may terminate in directly intuited tigers, as they would if we took a voyage to India for the purpose of tiger-hunting and brought back a lot of skins of the striped rascals which we had laid low’

\citep[p.~44--5]{James:1909vm}

James, 1909 p. 44-5

Why do those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other by how things are with Mars?

Guess: There is some relation between the utterance of ‘Earth’ [the word] and Earth [the thing] in virtue of which Steve’s utterance of the sentence is about Earth rather than Mars.

Terminology: call it ‘reference’

Q: What is this relation?

A [Pragmatist]:For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for this utterance to sieze the ‘interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon’ Earth.

Pragmatist approach: right or wrong?

My sense (a) it’s a bit hard to grasp what they have in mind; and (b) we’re not in a position to evaluate it.

Kripke on reference

a. initial baptism

b. causal chain

For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) Earth to have been baptised ‘Earth’ and (b) this utterance to be causally related in the appropriate way to that baptism event.

pragmatist

Kripke

Reference is a matter of the
effects
on the interpreter
of an utterance of the word.

Reference is a matter of the
causes
of the utterer’s
utterance of the word.

For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for this utterance to sieze the ‘interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon’ Earth.

For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) Earth to have been baptised ‘Earth’ and (b) this utterance to be causally related in the appropriate way to that baptism event.

description theories of reference

For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) the speaker to have associated this utterance of ‘Earth’ with a descripton, and (b) Earth to be the thing which, uniquely, this description is true of.

\section{Three Theories of Reference}

\emph{These are very crude statements of the positions; they are useful at most for getting a handle on the core ideas.}

Pragmatist:For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for this utterance to sieze the ‘interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon’ Earth.

Causal (Kripke):For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) Earth to have been baptised ‘Earth’ and (b) this utterance to be causally related in the appropriate way to that baptism event.

Description (not Russell, maybe no one):For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) the speaker to have associated this utterance of ‘Earth’ with a descripton, and (b) Earth to be the thing which, uniquely, this description is true of.

Evans on the Description Theory of Reference

‘outrageous ... I have strong doubts as to whether anyone has ever seriously held this thesis’

Evans, 1985 p. 3

This is interesting because a lot of books start with the theory, and philosophers have spent a lot of time arguing against it.

So the Theory is false as I have stated it (no objections yet considered).

But there is a question Evans does think is interesting:

For Steve’s utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth, is it necessary that Steve somehow descriptively identify Earth?

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

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.

But this why question is too hard, so I substituted another

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?

Why do those utterances differ in that one is made true by how things are with Earth whereas the other by how things are with Mars?

Guess: There is some relation between the utterance of ‘Earth’ [the word] and Earth [the thing] in virtue of which Steve’s utterance of the sentence is about Earth rather than Mars.

Terminology: call it ‘reference’

Q: What is this relation?

Pragmatist:For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for this utterance to sieze the ‘interpreter’s eyes and forcibly turn them upon’ Earth.

Causal (Kripke):For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) Earth to have been baptised ‘Earth’ and (b) this utterance to be causally related in the appropriate way to that baptism event.

Description (not Russell, maybe no one):For an utterance of ‘Earth’ to refer to Earth is for (a) the speaker to have associated this utterance of ‘Earth’ with a descripton, and (b) Earth to be the thing which, uniquely, this description is true of.

Lecture 01:

Words and Things

[email protected]

Comparison: Maps

Sentences vs Utterances

The Question Simplified

Three Theories of Reference

Keyboard Shortcuts?

Lecture 01:

Words and Things

[email protected]

Comparison: Maps

Sentences vs Utterances

The Question Simplified

Three Theories of Reference

Keyboard Shortcuts`?`