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
Reference
Steve’s 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth
Knowledge of Reference
The state of Steve’s mind in virtue of which his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth
What, if anything, is that state of mind?
Maybe: Knowledge of reference is acquaintance?
I.e. you have knowledge of reference concerning the utterance of a word when you are acquainted with its referent.
Objection: you might be acquainted with the referent while unaware of any connection between it and the utterance.
Why think there any such thing as knowledge of reference?
‘A number of tools have this feature: that the instructions for use of the tool do not mention something that explains the successful use of the tool.
For example, the instructions for turning an electric light on and off – ‘just flip the switch’ – do not mention electricity.
But the explanation of the success of switch-flipping as a method for getting lights to go on and off certainly does mention electricity.
It is in this sense that reference and truth have less to do with understanding language than philosophers have tended to assume’
Putnam, 1978 p. 99
New fact to be explained:
Humans successfully achieve ends by uttering words.
Guess: An explanation of how this is possible will hinge on a particular way of relating utterances of words to things.
Terminology: This relation is reference.
Old fact to be explained:
By changing the words uttered you can change which things an utterance depends on for its truth.
Guess: an explanation of why this occurs will hinge on a particular way of relating utterances of words to things.
Substantive claim: This relation is reference (i.e. the same as that one <--).
When the utterance of a word refers to a thing, must the utterer have knowledge of reference?
Putnam: no.
‘There is a common-sense picture of the relation between knowledge of reference and pattern of use.
... you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for’
Campbell, 2002 p. 4
Example : misspeaking
I utter ‘Elliot is a spy’.
But I misspoke.
I might clarify, ‘I meant to say that Philby, not Elliot, is a spy’.
Why does my utterance count as misspeaking?
Candidate explanation: Because my acquaintance with Philby was causing my use of the word ‘Elliot’.
‘There is a common-sense picture of the relation between knowledge of reference and pattern of use.
... you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for’
Campbell, 2002 p. 4