Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Indeterminacy, philosophy: An object is indeterminate if its linguistic description indicates fewer characteristics than a member of a (linguistic) community usually needs to distinguish the object from other objects. See also uncertainty of translation, vagueness, under-determinateness, inscrutability, determinateness._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
John McDowell on Indeterminacy - Dictionary of Arguments
I 184 Indeterminacy of the translation/Quine: the results of "conceptual sovereignty" are far from being determinable by means of scientific facts about the "empirical meaning". >Indeterminacy/Quine, >Gavagai. McDowellVsQuine: if we reject the Third Dogma, it has fatal consequences for Quine: for his reasoning, he needs the maintenance of the dualism endogenous/exogenous, which DavidsonVsQuine also rejects. >Third dogma, >Scheme/Content, >Conceptual scheme, >interior/exterior, cf. >Two dogmas. I 189 Theories language/observation language/McDowellVsQuine: now it can be that both are actually distinguishable. Then the observation meaning of a single theoretical theorem would be indeterminate. But we could not derive a general meaning indeterminacy from this. If we try to do that, we are confronted with the Third Dogma. Then we stand in front of a borderline of the separation of languages: we push the whole meaning into the theory and let the experience speak no language at all. Then, of course, the rational relation is lacking. We need this rational relationship, however, for Duhem's argument. This can only be of a local nature now. As we pave our way through the Third Dogma, we tailor Duhem's thoughts to the right size. (> Theory/McDowell). --- II 64 Indeterminacy/underdeterminedness/Conceptual Design/McDowell: the choice of a schema is always underdetermined by the data - requires terms that the subjects have not acquired. - This is not possible according to the strong verificationism, this equates verification with susceptibility for evidence. Conceptual design/McDowell: we need that in realistic science._____________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. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
McDowell I John McDowell Mind and World, Cambridge/MA 1996 German Edition: Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001 McDowell II John McDowell "Truth Conditions, Bivalence and Verificationism" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell, |
||
> Counter arguments against McDowell
> Counter arguments in relation to Indeterminacy
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-20