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

 

Knowledge of Reference (Part 1)

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?

E.g. on some versions of the causal theory, states of mind are not directly relevant for utterances of words to refer.
Putnam’s opposition ...

‘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’

\citep[p.~99]{Putnam:1978zr}.

Putnam, 1978 p. 99

Let me spell out the analogy ...
Words are tools.
New idea: reference is supposed to explain the successful use of the tool.
This is a bit of an aside, but it’s important ...

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 <--).

None of these things are such that we need to postulate knowledge of reference. Maybe, though, there are more facts to be explained for which we can invoke reference.

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.

In other words, there is no argument.

... you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for’

Campbell, 2002 p. 4

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’ \citep[p.~4]{Campbell:2002ge}.
“On the common-sense picture, your knowledge of reference controls the pattern of use that you make of the term. You use the term the way you do because you know what it stands for. In the later Wittgenstein and in Quine, the problem is that they think the common-sense picture cannot be sustained. There is only the pattern of use: there is no such thing as a knowledge of reference which controls the pattern of use, and to which the pattern of use is responsible. In later Wittgenstein, the form the resulting problem takes is that the pattern of use now seems arbitrary, since it is no longer thought of as controlled by knowledge of reference. This is the issue he confronts in his discussion of rule-following. In Quine, the form the problem takes is that when we have only the pattern of use to consider, we find that it seems to leave under-determined the ascription of meaning to the terms of a language. This is Quine’s problem of the indeterminacy of translation. In the ensuing discussion, amazingly, the common-sense picture—that you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for—is all but lost sight of”
\citep[p.~4]{Campbell:2002ge}
Example of justification ...

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