Holism/Radical Interpretation/RI/Davidson/Fodor/Lepore: his argument for holism is based on his assumption that individual sentences - e.g. "Kurt belongs to the German-speaking Community and Kurt holds true: "It is raining on Saturday afternoon and it is indeed raining in Kurt’s area on Saturday afternoon"- lawlike (laws) are - Fodor/LeporeVsDavidson: the generalizations thereof E.g. (x)(t)(if x belongs to the German-speaking community, then (x holds "it s raining" to be true at t if and only if it is raining in the vicinity of x at t) - do not support counterfactual conditionals and therefore, according to Davidson Def law, are not lawlike - no support of counterfactual conditionals E.g. the meaning of "it is raining" could be: "the cat is on the mat" - then it does not follow that the cat is not on the mat when it is not raining.
Solution: ...for a relation R and each speaker S... - then nomological - but not yet RI - lawlikeness: we only had to assume it because of the conventionality of language - Problem: the RI cannot find out conventionality by definition.
RI/Fodor/Lepore: our image of RI is much richer than that of Davidson.
Problem: the nomological approach is not holistic._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
J. Fodor/E. Lepore
Holism Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992