Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability

Author(s): Thomas S. Kuhn

Reviewed work(s):
Source: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association,
Vol. 1982, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), pp. 669-688
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192452 .
Accessed: 04/07/2012 13:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association.

http://www.jstor.org

Commensurability,

Thomas

Massachusetts

Communicability

Comparability,

S.

Kuhn

Institute

of

Technology

and I first
used in
Paul Feyerabend
have passed
since
Twenty years
to describe
the relafrom
mathematics
a term we had borrowed
print
theories.
'Incommensurabibetween
successive
scientific
ationship
we had
was the term;
each of us was led to it by problems
lity'
Kuhn
texts
in interpreting
scientific
1962;
(Feyerabend
encountered
his claims
for the
than his;
1962).
My use of the term was broader
at that
time
but our overlap
than mine;
were more sweeping
phenomenon
3
to show that
was substantial.
concerned
Each of us was centrally
-- 'force'
of scientific
and 'mass',
the meanings
terms and concepts
-- often
for example,
with the
or 'element'
and 'compound'
changed
that
in which they were deployed.
And each of us claimed
theory
the terms
it was impossible
to define
all
when such changes
occurred,
in the vocabulary
of the other.
The latter
claim we
of one theory
about the incommensurability
of scienembodied
in talk
independently
tific
theories.
of meaning
variance
then problems
All that was in 1962.
Since
the
no-one
has fully
faced
have been widely
but virtually
discussed,
and me to speak of incommensurability.
that
led Feyerabend
difficulties
is due in part to the role played
that
Doubtless,
by intuition
neglect
made much
in our initial
and metaphor
I, for example,
presentations.
of the verb
and conceptual,
'to see',
use of the double
visual
sense,
But for
and I repeatedly
to Gestalt
switches.
likened
theory-changes
the concept
of incommensurability
has been widely
whatever
reasons,
in a book published
last
and often
most recently
late
dismissed,
year
two
Putnam (1981,
Putnam redevelops
by Hilary
cogently
pp. 113-124).
of criticism
in earlier
lines
that
had figured
widely
philosophical
A brief
literature.
of those
restatement
criticisms
here should
precomments.
pare the way for some extended
of incommensurability
Most or all
discussions
have depended
upon
the literally
correct
but regularly
that,
over-interpreted
assumption
in mutually
if two theories
are incommensurable,
they must be stated

PSA 1982,
Copyright

Volume 2, pp. 669-688

1983 by the Philosophy
(

of

Science

Association

670
If that
untranslatable
is so, a first
of criticism
line
languages.
if there
is no way in which the two can be stated
in a single
runs,
then they cannot
be compared,
and no arguments
from evidence
language,
can be relevant
to the choice
between
Talk about differences
them.
and comparisons
that
some ground is shared,
is
and that
presupposes
what proponents
of incommensurability,
do talk
who often
of comparihave seemed to deny.
At these
their
talk
is necessarsons,
points
incoherent.
of criticism
line
see:
Davidson
(For this
1974,
ily
A second
and Scheffler
1966;
1967,
pp. 5-20;
Shapere
pp. 81-83.)
of criticism
line
cuts at least
as deep.
like
Kuhn, it is
People
us that
it is impossible
to translate
a
tell
old theories
into
said,
modern language.
But they then proceed
to do exactly
reconthat,
or Newton's
or Lavoisier's
or Maxwell's
Aristotle's
structing
theory
What
without
from the language
day.
departing
they and we speak every
can they mean, under these
when they speak about incomcircumstances,
line
of criticism
see:
Davidson
(For this
1974,
mensurability?
Kitcher
and Putnam
1978;
1981.)
pp. 17-20;
of these
from the second
in this
My concerns
paper arise
primarily
and I shall
need
of argument,
but the two are not independent,
lines
first
to set
also
to speak of the first.
With it I begin,
attempting
of
of at least
aside
some widespread
misunderstanding
my own point
a damaging
view.
Even with misunderstanding
eliminated,
however,
of the first
of criticism
To it I shall
residue
will
remain.
line
return
only at the end of this
paper.
1.

Local

Incommensurability

came from.
Remember briefly
where the term 'incommensurability'
with
is incommensurable
of an isosceles
The hypotenuse
right
triangle
in the sense
with its
radius
of a circle
its
side
or the circumference
residue
an integral
of length
contained
without
that
is no unit
there
There is thus no common
in each member of the pair.
number of times
does not make comparison
But lack of a common measure
measure.
can be comOn the contrary,
incommensurable
magnitudes
impossible.
that
of approximation.
Demonstrating
degree
pared to any required
achievethis
could be done and how to do it were among the splendid
was possible
achievement
But that
ments of Greek mathematics.
withmost geometric
from the start,
applied
techniques
only because,
was sought.
which comparison
between
out change to both of the items
in and around a
to the conceptual
deployed
vocabulary
Applied
functions
the term 'incommensurability'
scientific
metaphoritheory,
'no common language'.
becomes
'no common measure'
The phrase
cally.
is then the claim that
are incommensurable
The claim
that two theories
into which both theories,
or otherwise,
neutral
is no language,
there
or
without
residue
can be translated
of sentences,
as sets
conceived
form does incomliteral
than its
No more in its metaphorical
loss.
and for much the same reason.
imply incomparability,
mensurability
the same way in
function
Most of the terms common to the two theories
their
those
whatever
their
both;
may be, are preserved;
meanings,
of
is simply
translation
subgroup
Only for a small
homophonic.

671
terms and for sentences
them do
interdefined)
containing
(usually
arise.
The claim that
two theories
are
of translatability
problems
critics
have supposed.
than many of its
is more modest
incommensurable
of incommensurability
'local
I shall
this
modest
version
call
about
as incommensurability
was a claim
Insofar
incommensurability'.
its
form is my original
version.
local
about meaning
change,
language,
of criticism
then the first
line
If it can be consistently
maintained,
must fail.
The terms that preserve
at incommensurability
directed
for
a sufficient
basis
a theory
their
across
change provide
meanings
to theory
relevant
of differences
and for comparisons
the discussion
as we shall
from which the
choice.
see, a basis
They even provide,
of incommensurable
terms can be explored.
meanings
can be restricted
that
It is not clear,
however,
incommensurability
of meaning,
of the theory
state
In the present
to a local
region.
that preand those
terms that
the distinction
between
change meaning
or apply.
are a
it is at best
to explicate
serve
difficult
Meanings
historical
and they inevitably
change over time with changes
product,
in the demands on the terms that bear them.
It is simply
implausible
to a new theory
that
some terms should
change meaning when transferred
without
Far from supplythe terms transferred
with them.
infecting
invariance'
the phrase
ing a solution,
'meaning
may supply
only a new
of incommensurability.
home for the problems
presented
by the concept
I shall
is real,
of misunderstanding.
be
This difficulty
no product
to it at the end of this
and it will
then appear that
returning
paper,
is not the rubric
is best
under which incommensurability
'meaning'
is presently
discussed.
But no more suitable
alternative
at hand.
I now turn to the second
In search
main line
of criticism
of one,
It survives
directed
at incommensurability.
the return
regularly
of that
to the original
notion.
local
version
2.

Translation

versus

Interpretation

If any non-vacuous
into
elude
translation
terms of an older
theory
of its
how can historians
and other
the language
successor,
analysts
so well
in reconstructing
or interpreting
that
succeed
older
theory,
the use and function
of those
Historians
claim
including
very terms?
to be able to produce
successful
So, in a closely
interpretations.
I shall
related
do anthropologists.
here simply
enterprise,
premise
that
their
claims
are justified,
that
are no limits
of principle
there
on the extent
to which those
criteria
can be fulfilled.
Whether or
not correct,
as I think
these
in any case,
are,
they are,
assumptions
to the arguments
fundamental
directed
at incommensurability
by such
critics
as Davidson
Kitcher
and
(1974,
(1978,
p. 19),
pp. 519-529),
Putnam (1981,
the technique
of interpreAll three
sketch
p. 116).
all describe
or a translation
its
outcome
as a translation
tation;
and all
conclude
that
its
success
is incompatible
with even
schema;
local
As I now try to show what is the matter
incommensurability.
I come to the central
with their
of this
concerns
argument,
paper.
The argument

or

argument

sketch

I have

just

supplied

depends

672
of interpretation
with translation.
That
upon the equation
critically
I believe
at least
to Quine's
Word and Object.
is traceable
equation
is important.
it is wrong and that the mistake
My claim is that
a process
be having
more to say,
about which I shall
interpretation,
has been
is not the same as translation,
at least
not as translation
is easy because
The confusion
conceived
in much recent
philosophy.
a small
involves
at least
often
or perhaps
translation
actual
always
must be
case actual
translation
But in that
component.
interpretive
Recent
two distinguishable
seen to involve
processes.
analytic
the other
on one and conflated
has concentrated
exclusively
philosophy
and
I shall
here follow
recent
To avoid confusion
with it.
usage
to the first
of these
'translation'
'interpretation'
processes,
apply
is
of two processes
to the second.
But so long as the existence
the term
in my argument
upon preserving
depends
nothing
recognized,
for the first.
'translation'
done by a peris something
translation
For present
then,
purposes,
or
written
with a text,
Confronted
son who knows two languages.
substithe translator
in one of these
systematically
oral,
languages,
for words or
of words in the other
tutes words or strings
language
an equivalent
in such a way as to produce
of words in the text
strings
text"
What it is to be an "equivalent
in the other
text
language.
and
of meaning
Sameness
can, for the moment, remain unspecified.
but I do not yet
are both obvious
of reference
desiderata,
sameness
more
tells
text
Let us simply
them.
invoke
say that the translated
or desthe same ideas,
more or less
or less
the same story,
presents
of which it is a
as the text
the same situation
more or less
cribes
translation.
thus conceived
of translation
require
Two features
emphasis.
special
before
is cast existed
into which the translation
the language
First,
has not,
that
of translation
The fact
is,
was begun.
the translation
have
It may, of course,
of words or phrases.
the meanings
changed
of a given
term, but it has
the number of known referents
increased
are deternew and old,
the way in which those
referents,
not altered
conThe translation
related.
is closely
A second
feature
mined.
that replace
of words and phrases
(not necessarily
sists
exclusively
and translaGlosses
in the original.
words and phrases
one-for-one)
translaand a perfect
are not part of the translation,
tors'
prefaces
If they are nonetheless
required,
tion would have no need for them.
of translation
features
these
need to ask why.
we shall
Doubtless,
is not
But the idealization
are.
and they surely
seem idealizations,
and
from the nature
both derive
mine.
directly
sources,
Among other
manual.
translation
of a Quinean
function
It is an enterprise
by hisTurn now to interpretation.
practiced
the translator,
Unlike
and anthropologists,
torians
among others.
At the
command only a single
language.
the interpreter
may initially
in whole or in part
on which he or she works consists
the text
start,
transla"radical
Quine's
or inscriptions.
noises
of unintelligible
the uninteland 'Gavagai'
an interpreter,
tor" is in fact
exemplifies
and the
behavior
from.
he starts
material
Observing
ligible

673
of the text,
and assuming
the production
circumstances
surrounding
can be made of apparently
that good sense
behalinguistic
throughout
strives
to invent
that
the interpreter
seeks
sense,
vior,
hypotheses,
or inscripwhich make utterance
like
means "Lo, a rabbit,"
'Gavagai'
If the interpreter
what he or she has
tion
succeeds,
intelligible.
the langinstance
done is learn
a new language,
in the first
perhaps
or perhaps
an earlier
version
is a term,
of
uage in which
'gavagai'
terms like
own language,
current
the interpreter's
one in which still
or 'element'
and 'compound'
and 'mass'
functioned
'force'
differently.
the one with which the
into
Whether that
can be translated
language
a new language
is
interpreter
began is an open question.
Acquiring
one's
own.
Success
with
not the same as translating
from it into
with the second.
does not imply success
the first
that Quine's
are
It is with respect
to just
these
examples
problems
for they conflate
and translamisleading,
interpretation
consistently
anthroTo interpret
the utterance
tion.
Quine's
'Gavagai',
imagined
need not come from a speech
that knows of rabbits
community
pologist
a
a word which refers
to them.
Rather
than finding
and possesses
term that
to 'gavagai',
the interpreter/anthropologist
corresponds
could
the native's
some
term much as, at an earlier
acquire
stage,
terms of his or her own language
were acquired.6
The anthropologist
or interpreter,
that
to recognize
the
can and often
does learn
is,
creatures
that
evoke
from natives.
Rather than translate,
'gavagai'
the interpreter
can simply
learn
and use the natives'
term
the animal
for it.
The availability
of that
of course,
alternative
does not,
preclude
translation.
for reasons
The interpreter
may not,
previously
introduce
the term 'gavagai'
into
his or her own
explained,
merely
That would be to alter
and the result
language,
say English.
English
would not be translation.
But the interpeter
can attempt
to describe
-- they are furry,
in English
of the term 'gavagai'
the referents
longthe like.
If the description
is successful,
eared,
bushy--tailed,and
if it fits
all
and only creatures
that elicit
utterances
involving
then
. . . creature'
is the
'gavagai',
long-eared,
'furry,
bushy-tailed
and 'gavagai'
can thereafter
be
introduced
translation,
sought-after
into
as an abbreviation
for it
Under these
English
circumstances,
no issue
of incommensurability
arises.
But these
circumstances
need not obtain.
There need be no English
coreferential
with the native
term 'gavagai'.
In learning
description
to recognize
the interpreter
to recognize
gavagais,
may have learned
features
unknown to English
and for which
distinguishing
speakers
no descriptive
that
the
English
supplies
is,
terminology.
Perhaps,
natives
the animal world differently
structure
from the way English
different
discriminations
in doing
so.
Under
do, using
speakers
those
an irreducibly
remains
native
not
circumstances,
'gavagai'
term,
translatable
into
to use
English.
Though English
speakers
may learn
the term,
when they do so.
Those are
they speak the native
language
the circumstances
for which I would reserve
the term 'incommensurability'.

674
3.

Reference

Determination

versus

Translation

of this
has been that
circumstances
sort
are reguthen,
My claim,
if not always
of science
encountered,
recognized,
larly
by historians
to understand
out-of-date
scientific
texts.
The phlogiston
attempting
has provided
one of my standard
and Philip
Kitcher
has
examples,
theory
as the basis
of the whole notion
used it
for a penetrating
of
critique
What is currently
at issue
will
be considerably
incommensurability.
if I first
of that critioue
the kernel
clarified
exhibit
and then indicate the point
at which I think
it goes astray.
I think,
of
Kitcher
that the language
argues,
successfully
of the
can be used to identify
referents
twentieth-century
chemistry
to the
of eighteenth-century
at least
terms and expressions
chemistry,
a
extent
that
those
terms and expressions
refer.
Reading
actually
in
of the experiments
and thinking
he describes
text
by, say, Priestley
air'
sometimes
refers
modern terms,
one can see that
'dephlogisticated
'Phloto an oxygen enriched
to oxygen
sometimes
itself,
atmosphere.
air'
is regularly
air from which oxygen has been removed.
gisticated
than B' is coreferential
The expression
in phlogiston
'a is richer
for oxygen
than 9'.
In some contexts,
with
'a has a greater
affinity
combusis emitted
for example
in the expression
during
'phlogiston
are other
does not refer
at all,
but there
the term 'phlogiston'
tion',
in which it refers
to hydrogen
contexts
(Kitcher
1978,
pp. 531-536).
texts
with old scientific
I have no doubt that historians
dealing
of out-of-date
referents
to identify
can and must use modern language
these
reference-deterto gavagais,
Like the native's
terms.
pointing
from which historians
the concrete
minations
often
may
examples
provide
mean.
in their
texts
what the problematical
expressions
hope to learn
of modern terminology
makes it possible
In addition,
the introduction
theories
were successful.
older
to explain
why and in what areas
as
of reference-determination
this
describes
however,
Kitcher,
process
talk
should
its
that
and he suggests
bring
translation,
availability
he seems to
In both these
to a close.
of incommensurability
respects
me mistaken.
translated
Think for a moment of what a text
techniques
by Kitcher's
of
occurrences
would non-referring
would look like.
How, for example,
both by
-- suggested
One possibility
be rendered?
'phlogiston'
truthto preserve
and by his concern
on the subject
silence
Kitcher's
-- would be to leave
the
which are in these
values,
problematic
places
as
to fail
blanks
To leave
blank.
however,
is,
spaces
corresponding
If only referring
translations,
a translator.
possess
expressions
and for present
at all,
could be translated
then no work of fiction
the courwith at least
must be treated
texts
old scientific
purposes,
what sciento works of fiction.
extended
They report
normally
tesy
and that
of its
truth-value,
of the past believed,
tists
independent
must communicate.
is what a translation
Alternatively,
for
he developed

Kitcher
referring

might use the same context-dependent

air'.
terms like
'dephlogisticated

strategy

675
would then sometimes
be rendered
as 'substance
released
'Phlogiston'
from burning
sometimes
as 'metallizing
and somebodies',
principle',
times
other
locutions.
This strategy,
also
leads
however,
by still
to disaster,
not only with terms like
but with referring
'phlogiston'
as well.
Use of a single
word 'phlogiston',
expressions
together
with compounds
like
air'
from it,
derived
is one of
'phlogisticated
the ways by which the original
text
communicated
the beliefs
of its
author.
unrelated
or differently
related
Substituting
expressions
for those
sometimes
identical
terms of the original
must at
related,
least
those
beliefs
the text
that
results
incoherent.
suppress
leaving
a Kitcher
one would repeatedly
be at a logs to
translation,
Examining
understand
were juxtaposed
sentences
in a single
text.
why those
To see more clearly
what is involved
in dealing
with out-of-date
consider
the following
of some central
of the
texts,
epitome
aspects
For the sake of clarity
and brevity,
I have conphlogiston
theory.
structed
it myself,
but it could,
have been drawn from an
aside,
style
chemical
manual.
eighteenth-century
All physical
bodies
are composed
of chemical
elements
and
the latter
the former with special
principles,
endowing
are the earths
and airs,
properties.
Among the elements
and among the principles
is phlogiston.
One set of earths,
for example,
carbon and sulphur,
in their
normal state,
are,
rich
in phlogiston
and leave
an acid residue
especially
when deprived
of it.
Another
the calxes
or ores,
are
set,
and they become lustrous,
ducnormally
poor in phlogiston,
-- thus metallic
-- when
and good heat conductors
tile,
with it.
Transfer
of phlogiston
to air occurs
impregnated
combustion
and such related
as respiration
during
processes
and calcination.
Air of which the phlogistic
content
has
been thus increased
has reduced
elasair)
(phlogisticated
and reduced
to support
life.
Air from
ticity
ability
which part of the normal phlogistic
has been
component
removed
life
air)
(dephlogisticated
supports
especially
energetically.
The manual
whole.

continues

from

here,

but

this

excerpt

will

serve

for

the

consists
of sentences
from phlogistic
chemMy constructed
epitome
Most of the words in those
sentences
in both eighteenthistry.
appear
and twentieth-century
chemical
and they function
in the
century
texts,
same way in both.
A few other
terms in such texts,
most notably
and their
can be
'phlogistication',
'dephlogistication',
relatives,
in which only the term 'phlogiston'
is foreign
replaced
to
by phrases
modern chemistry.
But after
all
such replacements
are completed,
a
small
for which the modern chemical
group of terms remains
vocabulary
offers
no equivalent.
Some have vanished
from the language
of chemthe presently
most obvious
istry
entirely,
'phlogiston'
being
example.
like
the term 'principle',
have lost
Others,
all purely
chemical
significance.
(The imperative
is a chemical
"purify
your reactants"

676
from that
in a sense
in which phlogiston
was
principle
very different
other
for example,
Still
'element'
remain central
to
terms,
one.)
and they inherit
some functions
the chemical
from their
vocabulary,
But terms like
with
older
learned
homonyms.
'principle',
previously
from modern texts,
and with them has gone the
them, have disappeared
that qualities
constitutive
like
color
and
previously
generalization
direct
evidence
chemical
composition.
concerning
elasticity
provide
of these
as the
As a result,
the referents
terms as well
surviving
criteria
for identifying
and systematically
them are now drastically
altered.
In both respects,
the term 'element'
in eighteenth-century
as much like
functioned
the modern phrase
'state-ofchemistry
as like
the modern term 'element'.
aggregation'
Whether
refer

--

or

not

terms

these

like

terms

'phlogiston',

from

chemistry

eighteenth-century
'principle',

and

'element'

--

they

of
to be a translation
from any text
that purports
are not eliminable
as placea phlogistic
At the very least
they must serve
original.
the idenof properties
for the interrelated
sets
which permit
holders
To
terms.
of these
interrelated
of the putative
referents
tification
must represent
the phlogiston
a text
that deploys
be coherent
theory
the same
as a chemical
off in combustion
the stuff
principle,
given
and that also,
when abstracto breathe
the air unfit
one that
renders
But if
an acid residue.
leaves
ted from an appropriate
material,
terms are not eliminable,
these
they seem also not to be replaceable
And if that is
individually
by some set of modern words or phrases.
then the constructed
at once,
a point
to be considered
the case,
pasat
be a translation,
above cannot
terms appeared
sage in which those
in recent
of that term standard
least
not in the sense
philosophy.
4.

The Historian

as

Interpreter

and Language

Teacher

chemito assert
that eighteenth-century
be correct
Can it,
however,
I have,
after
are untranslatable?
all,
cal terms like
'phlogiston'
a number of ways in which the
in modern language
described
already
off
for example,
refers.
term 'phlogiston'
older
is,
given
Phlogiston
and life-supporting
it reduces
the elasticity
in combustion;
properlike
that modern-language
It appears
and so on.
of air;
ties
phrases
of
translation
a modern-language
to produce
these
might be compounded
which describe
But they cannot.
Among the phrases
'phlogiston'.
are picked
out are a number
of the term 'phlogiston'
how the referents
and 'element'.
terms like
untranslatable
other
that include
'principle'
or interan interrelated
with
they constitute
'phlogiston',
Together
as
set that must be acquired
any of
defined
together,
o0whole, before
to natural
they
them can be used,
Only after
phenomena.
applied
can one recognize
chemistry
have been thus acquired
eighteenth-century
from its
that differed
twentieth-century
for what it was, a discipline
substances
in what it had to say about individual
not simply
successor
out a large
and parceled
but in the way it structured
and processes
world.
part of the chemical
A more
Newtonian

restricted
mechanics,

In learning
my point.
clarify
example will
and 'force'
must be acquired
'mass'
the terms

677
in their
Second Law must play a role
and Newton's
acquisitogether,
'mass'
and 'force'
that
learn
One cannot,
tion.
is,
independently
that
force
mass times
acceleradiscover
and then empirically
equals
learn
'mass'
and then use it
Nor can one first
tion.
(or 'force')
with the aid of the Second Law.
'force'
to define
Instead,
(or 'mass')
of a whole new (but not a
all three
must be learned
together,
parts
is unfortunately
That point
new) way of doing mechanics.
wholly
one
In formalizing
mechanics
formalizations.
obscured
by standard
or 'force'
as primitive
and then introduce
'mass'
either
may select
as a defined
But that
formalization
no
term.
the other
supplies
or the defined
terms attach
the primitive
information
about how either
and masses
out in actual
are picked
to nature,
how the forces
physical
in some partisituations.
Though 'force',
say, may be a primitive
forces
of mechanics,
one cannot
learn
to recognize
cular
formalization
recourse
to pick out masses
and without
without
simultaneously
learning
are not
and 'mass'
'force'
to the Second Law.
That is why Newtonian
or
of a physical
into
translatable
the language
(Aristotelian
theory
of the Second Law
for example)
version
in which Newton's
Einsteinian,
To learn
three
does not apply.
any one of these
ways of doing mechterms in some local
the interrelated
anics,
part of the web of langand then laid
down on nature
or relearned
uage must be learned
together
whole.
be rendered
They cannot
simply
individually
by translation.
who teaches
or writes
about the phlogiscan a historian
How, then,
at all?
ton theory
his results
What is it that occurs
communicate
to readers
a group of sentences
like
those
when the historian
presents
above?
about phlogiston
in the epitome
The answer to that question
and I begin with the one presently
varies
with the audience,
most
It consists
of previous
relevant.
of people
without
any sort
expoTo them the historian
is describing
sure to the phlogiston
theory.
of the eighteenth
the world in which the phlogistic
chemist
century
which
believed.
he or she is teaching
the language
Simultaneously,
used in describing,
and
chemists
eighteenth-century
explaining,
that world.
Most of the words in that older
are
exploring
language
with words in the language
of the
identical
both in form and function
and the historian's
But others
historian
audience.
are new and must
or relearned.
be learned
These are the untranslatable
terms for
which the historian
or some predecessor
or invent
has had to discover
in order
to render
the texts
on which he works.
meanings
intelligible
is the process
terms is disInterpretation
by which the use of those
and fi has been much discussed
under the rubric
covered,
recently
hermeneutics.
and the words acquired,
Once it has been completed
the historian
uses them in his own work and teaches
them to others.
The question
of translation
does not arise.
simply
I suggest,
All this
when passages
like
the one emphasized
applies,
to an audience
that knows nothing
of the phlogisabove are presented
ton theory.
For that
these
audience
are glosses
on phlogispassages
tic texts,
intended
to teach
in which such texts
are
them the language
and the way they are to be read.
are also
written
But such texts
who have already
to read them, people
learned
encountered
by people
for whom they are simply
of an already
familiar
one more example
type.
These are the people
seem merely
to whom such texts
will
translations,

678
or perhaps
for they have forgotten
that they had to learn
texts,
merely
a special
is an
before
read them.
The mistake
language
they could
the native
The language
largely
easy one.
they learned
overlapped
But it differed
from their
native
before.
language
they had learned
of terms like
the introduction
in part by enrichment,
e.g.,
language
of systematically
transand in part by the introduction
'phlogiston',
formed uses of terms like
and 'element'.
unreIn their
'principle'
vised
native
texts
could
not have been rendered.
these
language,
far more discussion
than can be attempted
Though the point
requires
much of what I have been saying
is neatly
here,
captured
by the form
of Ramsey sentences.
The existentially
variables
with
quantified
which such sentences
can be seen as what I previously
called
begin
for terms requiring
"placeholders"
e.g.,
interpretation,
'phlogiston',
and 'element'.
with its
logical
'principle',
Together
consequences,
available
itself
is then a compendium of the clues
the Ramsey sentence
to an interpreter,
he or she would have to
clues
in practice,
that,
is
I think,
of texts.
discover
extended
That,
exploration
through
introof the technique
the proper
the plausibility
way to understand
terms through
theoretical
duced by David Lewis for defining
Ramsey
which
sentences
Like contextual
definitions,
(Lewis 1970,
1972).
Lewis's
as well,
and like
definitions
ostensive
resemble,
they closely
mode of
an important
schematize
essential)
(perhaps
Ramsey-definitions
is in all
of 'definition'
involved
But the sense
learning.
language
three
or at least
None of these
three
cases
extended.
metaphorical
will
substitution:
sorts
of "definitions"
Ramsey sentences
support
be used for translation.
cannot
This is not the
of course,
Lewis disagrees.
With this
last
point,
of his case,
to the details
to respond
many of them technical,
place
be indicated.
Lewis's
of criticism
but two lines
Ramseymay at least
that the corresdetermine
reference
definitions
only on the assumption
It is questionable
is uniquely
realizable.
Ramsey sentence
ponding
it holds
that
and unlikely
that assumption
ever holds
whether
reguit makes
the definitions
When and if it does,
furthermore,
larly.
If there
is one and only one referential
are uninformative.
possible
a person
of a given
realization
hope
may of course
Ramsey sentence,
hit upon the
But having
to hit upon it.
and error
simply
by trial
would be of
in a text
term at one point
of a Ramsey-defined
referent
of that
term on its
next occurrence.
the referent
no help in finding
claim
on his further
of Lewis's
The force
argument depends therefore
but also
not only reference
determine
sense,
that Ramsey definitions
to
related
difficulties
and this
closely
part of his case encounters
outlined.
than the ones just
but even more severe
another
these
Even if Ramsey definitions
difficulties,
escaped
out (Kuhn 1970,
I have previously
pointed
major set would remain.
unlike
the axioms of
that
the laws of a scientific
theory,
pp. 188f.)
in that
their
are only law sketches
a mathematical
symbolic
system,
to which they are applied.
formalizations
depend upon the problem
Sneed and
extended
been considerably
has since
That point
by Joseph
and show that their
who consider
Ramsey sentences
Stegmuller
Wolfgang

679
standard
sentential
formulation
varies
from one range of applications
to the next
Most occurrences
of new
(Sneed 1971,
1973).
StegmUller
or problematic
terms in a science
text
within
are,
however,
applicaand the corresponding
are simply
not a rich
tions,
Ramsey sentences
of clues
to block
a multitude
of trivial
enough source
interpretations.
To permit
reasonable
of a text
studded
with Ramsey defiinterpretation
readers
would have first
to collect
a variety
of different
nitions,
of application.
And having
done so they would still
have to
ranges
do what the historian/interpreter
in the same situation.
attempts
They
that
have to invent
and test
of
about the sense
would,
is,
hypotheses
the terms introduced
by Ramsey definitions.
5.

The Quinean

Translation

Manual

Most of the difficulties

I have been considering
derive
more or less
from a tradition
which holds
that translation
can be construed
directly
in purely
I have been insisting
referential
terms.
that
it cannot,
and my arguments
have at least
that
from the realm of
implied
something
must be invoked
as well.
To make
intensionalities,
meanings,
concepts
I have considered
those
an example
from history
of science,
an
points
of the sort
that brought
me to the problem
of incommensurabiexample
and thence
to translation
in the first
The same sorts
of
lity
place.
be made directly
from recent
discussions
of refercan, however,
points
ential
semantics
and related
discussions
of translation.
Here I shall
consider
the single
to which I alluded
at the start:
example
Quine's
of a translation
manual.
Such a manual -- the end product
conception
-- consists
of the efforts
of a radical
translator
of parallel
lists
of
words and phrases,
one in the translator's
own language,
the other
in
the language
of the tribe
he is investigating.
Each item on each list
is linked
to one or often
to several
items
on the other,
each link
a word or phrase
in one language
that
specifying
can, the translator
be substituted
in appropriate
contexts
for the linked
word
supposes,
or phrase
in the other.
Where the linkages
are one-many,
the manual
includes
of the contexts
in which each of the various
specifications
links
is to be preferred
(Quine 1960,
pp. 27, 68-82).
The network
of difficulties
I want to isolate
concerns
the last
of
these
of the manual,
the context
the
Consider
components
specifiers.
French word 'pompe'.
In some contexts
those
(typically
involving
its
is 'pomp';
ceremonies)
in other
contexts
English
equivalent
its
is 'pump'.
Both equivalents
(typically
hydraulic),
equivalent
are precise.
a typical
of ambiguity
'Pompe' thus provides
example
like
the standard
'bank':
a riverside
sometimes
and
English
example,
sometimes
a financial
institution.
Now contrast
the case of 'pompe' with that
of French words like
or 'doux'/'douce'.
can be replaced,
on
'esprit'
'Esprit'
depending
terms as 'spirit',
context,
by such English
'mind',
'aptitude',
or 'attitude'.
an
The latter,
'intelligence',
'wit',
'judgment',
can be applied,
inter
to honey
to wool
adjective,
alia,
('sweet'),
to underseasoned
to a memory ('tender'),
('soft'),
or
soup ('bland'),
to a slope
or a wind ('gentle').
These are not cases
of ambiguity,

680
but of conceptual
between
French
and English.
and
disparity
Esprit
are unitary
for French
and English
doux/douce
speakers,
concepts
as a group possess
As a result,
no equivalents.
speakers
though the
various
offered
above preserve
translations
truth-value
in appropriate
none of them is in any context
contexts,
intensionally
precise.
and 'doux'/'douce'
are thus examples
of terms that
can be
'Esprit'
of
translated
The translator's
choice
only in partand
by compromise.
a particular
word or phrase
for one of them is ipso
facto
the
English
choice
of some aspects
of the intension
of the French term at the
of others.
it introduces
associaintensional
expense
Simultaneously
tions
of English
to the work being
transbut foreign
caracteristic
I think,
lated.
Quine's
of translation
suffers
analysis
badly,
from its
to distinguish
cases
of this
from straightforsort
inability
ward ambiguity,
from the case of terms like
'pompe'.
is identical
The difficulty
with the one encountered
by Kitcher's
a
source
must be obvious:
translation
of 'phlogiston'.
By now its
of translation
semantics
and therefore
based on an extensional
theory
of
as a criterion
or equivalent
restricted
to truth-value
preservation
and so on, both 'doux'/
Like 'phlogiston',
'element',
adequacy.
of interrelated
terms a number
to clusters
and 'esprit'
'douce'
belong
a
when learned,
and which,
of which must be learned
give
together
from
different
to some portion
structure
of the world of experience
Such words illusto contemporary
the one familiar
speakers.
English
In the case of
trate
natural
between
languages.
incommensurability
a
for example,
the cluster
'mou'/'molle',
includes,
'doux'/'douce'
but which applies
to English
word closer
than 'doux'/'douce'
'soft',
consiwith
to warm damp weather.
also
Or, in the cluster
'esprit',
in the area of
The latter
der 'disposition'.
'esprit'
overlaps
or to
to state-of-health
but also
attitudes
and aptitudes,
applies
These intensionalities
of words within
a phrase.
the arrangement
is why there
and that
would preserve,
translation
are what a perfect
the unobtainable
But approximating
can be no perfect
translations.
a constraint
on actual
ideal
remains
and, if the contranslations,
of
for the indeterminacy
straint
were taken into
account,
arguments
from that now current.
would require
a form very different
translation
manuals
as
in his translation
the one-many
linkages
By treating
on
constraints
the intensional
cases
of ambiguity,
Quine discards
the primary
clue
he discards
translation.
Simultaneously,
adequate
in other
of how the words and phrases
to the discovery
languages
caused
are sometimes
refer.
by ambiguity,
linkages
Though one-many
and situations
of which objects
evidence
provide
they far more often
of the other
for speakers
are similar
and which are different
langstructures
the
how the other
is,
language
uage;
they show, that
is thus very much the same as that played
Their
function
world.
by
Just as the
a first
in learning
observations
language.
multiple
must be shown many different
child
dogs and probably
learning
'dog'
so the English
as well,
some cats
'doux'/'douce'
learning
speaker
take note of contexts
and also
it in many contexts
must observe
These are the ways,
instead.
where French employs
'mou'/'molle'
for attaching
the techniques
or some of them, by which one learns

681
to nature,
first
those
of one's
words and phrases
own language
and
the different
ones embedded in other
then,
perhaps,
languages.
By
the very possibility
them up, Quine eliminates
of interpretagiving
and interpretation
as I argued at the start,
what his radiis,
tion,
cal translator
must do before
translation
can begin.
Is it then a
wonder that Quine discovers
difficulties
unanticipated
previously
about "translation"?
6.

The Invariants

of

Translation

I turn finally
to a problem
that has been held at arm's length
since
the beginning
of this
What is it that
translation
must
paper:
I have argued,
Not merely
for referencereference,
preserve?
translations
to understand
impossible
preserving
may be incoherent,
the terms they employ are taken in their
while
usual
sense.
That
of the difficulty
an obvious
solution:
transladescription
suggests
tions
must preserve
not only reference
but also
sense
or intension.
Under the rubric
I have
that
is the position
invariance',
'meaning
taken in the past
I adopted
and that
faute
de mieux in the introduction
to this
It is by no means merely
but it is not
paper.
wrong,
an equivocation
I believe,
of a deep
either,
right
quite
symptomatic,
in the concept
of meaning.
In another
it will
be
context
duality
to confront
essential
that duality
Here I shall
it
skirt
directly.
talk
of 'meaning'
Instead
I shall
by avoiding
discuss,
entirely.
how members
though as yet in quite
general,
terms,
quasi-metaphorical
of a language
of the terms they
community pick out the referents
employ.
Consider
the following
which some of you will
thought
experiment
have encountered
as a joke.
A mother
first
tells
her
previously
the story
of Adam and Eve, then shows the child
a picture
daughter
of the pair
in the Garden of Eden.
The child
frowns
in
looks,
and says,
me which is which.
I would
tell
puzzlement,
"Mother,
know if they had their
clothes
on."
Even in so condensed
a format,
this
underscores
two obvious
characteristics
of language.
In
story
terms with their
one may legitimately
make use of
matching
referents,
one knows or believes
about those
referents.
Two people
anything
and nevertheless
use different
may, moreover,
speak the same language
criteria
in picking
out the referents
of its
terms.
An observer
aware of their
would simply
differences
conclude
that the two differed
in what they knew about the objects
under discussion.
That
different
use different
criteria
in identifying
the referents
people
of shared
terms may, I think,
I shall
be taken
for granted.
safely
in addition,
the now widely
shared
thesis
that
none of the
posit,
criteria
used in reference
determination
are merely
conventional,
associated
with the terms they help to characsimply
by definition
terize.13
How can it be, though,
that people
whose criteria
are different
so
for their
A first
terms?
regularly
pick out the same referents
answer is straightforward.
Their
is adapted
to the social
language
and natural
world in which they live,
and that world does not present
the sorts
of objects
and situations
which would,
their
by exploiting

682
lead them to make different
criterial
identifications.
differences,
in turn,
a further
That answer,
raises
and more difficult
question:
what is it that determines
the adequacy
of the sets
of criteria
a
when applying
to the world which that
speaker
employs
language
langWhat must speakers
with disparate
referenceuage describes?
criteria
share in order that they be speakers
of the
determining
members of the same language
same language,
community?14
Members of the same language
are members of a common
community
and each may therefore
to be presented
with the same
culture,
expect
and situations.
If they are to co-refer,
each
range of objects
must associate
each individual
term with a set of criteria
sufficient
to distinguish
its
from other
referents
sorts
of objects
or situations
which the community's
world actually
though not from
presents,
to
The ability
still
other
that
are merely
objects
imaginable.
a
the members of one set often
therefore
identify
correctly
requires
I
of contrast
for example,
sets
as well.
Some years
knowledge
ago,
that
to identify
suggested
learning
knowing
geese
may also
require
of crisuch creatures
as ducks and swans (Kuhn 1974).
The cluster
I indicated,
teria
to the identification
of geese
adequate
depends,
on
not only on the characteristics
shared
but also
by actual
geese,
of certain
in the world inhabited
the characteristics
other
creatures
and those
terms or
who talk
about them.
Few referring
by geese
from the world or from
are learned
in isolation
either
expressions
each other.
with
match language
This very partial
model of the way speakers
to reintroduce
two closely
related
themes that
the world is intended
is the
The first,
of course,
in this
have emerged repeatedly
paper.
of terms that must be learned
of sets
essential
role
together
by
or other,
and which forthose
raised
a culture,
scientific
inside
must consider
that
culture
during
encountering
together
eigners
this
element
which entered
That is the holistic
interpretation.
for
and the basis
with local
incommensurability,
paper at the start,
criIf different
different
it should
now be clear.
using
speakers
for the same terms,
out the same referents
teria
succeed
in picking
a role
must have played
in determining
the criteria
sets
contrast
At least
with individual
terms.
each associates
they must when, as
and
do not themselves
constitute
is usual,
those
criteria
necessary
for reference.
Under these
sufficient
conditions
circumstances,
of language.
feature
must be an essential
holism
some sort of local
recurrent
a basis
for my second
These remarks may also provide
different
assertion
that
the reiterated
impose diftheme,
languages
for
for a moment, that
structures
on the world.
ferent
Imagine,
network
a referring
term is a node in a lexical
each individual
for the criteria
that he or she uses in
labels
from which radiate
will
Those criteria
of the nodal term.
the referents
identifying
thus building
and distance
them from others,
some terms together
tie
That structure
the lexicon.
within
a multi-dimensional
structure
can
of the world which the lexicon
of the structure
mirrors
aspects
that
the phenomena
limits
and it simultaneously
be used to describe,

683
with the lexicon's
aid.
If anomalous
can be described
phenomena
nevertheless
their
even their
arise,
description
(perhaps
recogniwill
some part of the language,
tion)
the
altering
require
changing
constitutive
between
terms.
previously
linkages
structures
the
Note,
now, that homologous
structures,
mirroring
same world,
different
sets
of criterial
linkmay be fashioned
using
What such homologous
structures
bare of criterial
ages.
preserve,
is the taxonomic
of the world and the similarity/
labels,
categories
difference
between
them.
on metarelationships
Though I here verge
should
be clear.
What members of a language
phor,
my direction
share
is homology
of lexical
structure.
Their
criteria
community
need not be the same, for those
from each other
as
they can learn
needed.
But their
taxonomic
structures
must match,
for where structure is different,
the world is different,
is private,
and
language
communication
ceases
until
one party
the language
of the
acquires
other.
in my view,
the invariants
of
where,
By now it must be clear
translation
are to be sought.
Unlike
two members of the same langof mutually
translatable
need not
uage community,
speakers
languages
share
terms:
'Rad' is not 'wheel'.
But the referring
expressions
of one language
must be matchable
to coreferential
in the
expressions
and the lexical
structures
of the langother,
employed
by speakers
each language
but also
from
uages must be the same, not only within
one language
to the other.
in short,
to
be preserved
Taxonomy must,
both shared
and shared
them.
between
provide
categories
relationships
Where it is not,
is impossible,
translation
an outcome precisely
illustrated
valiant
to fit
the phlogiston
by Kitcher's
attempt
theory
to the taxonomy
of modern chemistry.
of course,
Translation
of those
resort
who seek
is,
only the first
Communication
can be established
in its
absence.
comprehension.
But where translation
is not feasible,
the very different
processes
of interpretation
and language
are required.
These
acquisition
are not arcane.
and perhaps
processes
Historians,
anthropologists,
small
children
in them every
But they are not well
engage
day.
and their
is likely
to require
the attenunderstood,
comprehension
tion
of a wider philosophical
circle
than the one currently
engaged
with them.
of attention
an underUpon that expansion
depends
not only of translation
and its
but also
of
standing,
limitations,
It is no accident
that
the synchronic
conceptual
change.
analysis
of Quine's
Word and Object
is introduced
by the diachronic
epigraph
of Neurath's
boat.

684
Notes
Since
this
drafted,
paper was first
many people
to its
at M.I.T.
improvement,
among them colleagues
the P.S.A.
and at the Columbia
seminar
in
meeting
of Science
where a preliminary
version
Philosophy
out.
I am grateful
of them, above all to
to all
Nathaniel
and my two
Horwich,
Kuhn, Stephen
Stich,
tators.

have contributed
and auditors
at
and
History
was first
tried
Ned Block,
Paul
official
commen-

2
I believe
that Feyerabend's
and my resort
to 'incommensurability'
was independent,
and I have an uncertain
it
memory of Paul's
finding
in a draft
of mine and telling
me he too had been using
manuscript
it.
our early
are:
Kuhn (1970,
Passages
illustrating
usages
all
from the first
112, 128f.,
148-151,
pp. 102f.,
(1962)
unchanged
and Feyerabend
edition)
(1962,
74-76,
81).
pp. 56-59,
Both Feyerabend
and I wrote of the impossibility
of defining
the
terms of one theory
on the basis
of the terms of the other.
But he
restricted
I spoke also
to language;
of differincommensurability
ences
in "methods,
of solution"
and standards
(Kuhn
problem-field,
I would no longer
do except
to the consider1970, p. 103),
something
able extent
that
the latter
differences
are necessary
of
consequences
the language-learning
on the
(1962,
process.
Feyerabend
p. 59),
other
that
"it is possible
neither
to define
the primihand, wrote
tive
terms of T' on the basis
of the primitive
terms of T nor to
establish
correct
relations
both these
terms."
empirical
involving
I made no use of a notion
of primitive
terms and restricted
incomto a few specific
terms.
mensurability
This

point

had been

previously

emphasized

in

Hanson

(1958).

Note that these

terms are not theory
but are simply
independent
used in the same way within
the two theories
at issue.
It follows
that testing
is a process
that
two theories,
not one that
compares
can evaluate
theories
one at a time.
that his radical
Quine notes
translator
the "costly"
might choose
the language
direct
as an infant
But he
way and "learn
might."
takes
this
to be simply
an alternate
route
to the same end
process
as those
reached
that
end being
a translation
means,
by his standard
manual
(Quine 1960,
pp. 47, 70f).
that a string
Some would object
like
'furry,
long-eared,
bushy. . . creature'
tailed
is too long and complex
to count as a translation
of a single
But I incline
term in another
to the
language.
view that
can be interany term which can be introduced
by a string
so that,
with practice,
nalized
its
referents
can be recognized
I am concerned
In any case,
of
with a stronger
version
directly.
one in which not even long strings
are available.
untranslatability,

685
that
his translation
Kitcher
him to
supposes
techniques
permit
of the older
which statements
were true,
which false.
specify
theory
about the substance
Thus statements
released
on combustion
were false
about the effect
but statements
of dephlogisticated
air on vital
activities
were true because
in those
statements
'dephlogisticated
I think,
air'
to oxygen.
referred
that
is only
Kitcher
however,
modern theory
to explain
made by practiusing
why some statements
of the older
tioners
were confirmed
others
by experience,
theory
such successes
is basic
not.
The ability
to explain
and failures
of science's
of texts.
to the historian
(If an
interpretation
of a text
attributes
to the author
asserinterpretation
repeated
would have infirmed,
then
tions
which easily
available
observations
and the historian
the interpretation
is almost
must
certainly
wrong,
For an example
of what may then be required,
see
go to work again.
in Kuhn (1977).)
But neither
Kuhn (1964)
nor
interpretation
allow
Kitcher's
translation
individual
containsentences
techniques
to be declared
true or false.
ing terms from the older
theory
I believe,
Theories
that must be evaluated
structures
as wholes.
are,
of course,
Kitcher,
to the beliefs
of the
the passages
in which
translation
at all.

does explain
these
juxtapositions
by referring
of the text
author
and to modern theory.
But
he does this
of his
not parts
are glosses,

and 'principle'
'element'
have to be learned
10Perhaps only
together.
Once they have been learned,
but only then,
'phlogiston'
could be introduced
as a principle
that behaved
in certain
specified
ways.
11
of 'hermeneutic'
I have in mind (there
To the sense
are others)
the most useful
introduction
is Taylor
(1971).
however,
Taylor,
takes
for granted
the descriptive
of the natural
that
language
sciences
of the social
is
(and the behavioral
sciences)
language
fixed
and neutral.
A useful
corrective
from within
the hermeneutic
is provided
tradition
Both are conveniently
(1972).
by Apel
reprinted in Dallmayr
and McCarthy
an anthology
for
useful
also
(1977),
other
of the hermeneutic
tradition.
aspects
Glosses
which describe
how the French view the psychic
(or the
world can be of great
and French
sensory)
help with this
problem,
textbooks
include
on such cultural
material
matters.
language
usually
But glosses
the culture
are not parts
of the translation
describing
itself.
for French terms provide
no subLong English
paraphrases
because
of their
clumsiness
but mostly
because
terms
stitute,
partly
like
or 'doux'/'douce'
are items
in a vocabulary
certain
'esprit'
of which must be learned
The argument
is the same
parts
together.
as the one given
for 'element'
and 'principle'
or 'force'
previously
and 'mass'.
13

Two points
must be underscored.
I am not equating
meanFirst,
'criteria'
is to be understood
Second,
ing with a set of criteria.
in a very broad sense,
one that
embraces
whatever
not all
techniques,

686
do use in pinning
of them necessarily
words to the
conscious,
people
as used here,
In particular,
'criteria'
can certainly
world.
to paradigmatic
include
(but then the relevant
examples
similarity
must be known) or recourse
to experts
relation
(but then
similarity
must know how to find the relevant
experts).
speakers
14
I have found no brief
this
without
way to discuss
seeming
topic
to imply that
and psychologically
criteria
are somehow logically
for which they are criterial.
to the objects
and situations
prior
I think
and that they are often
both must be learned
But, in fact,
of masses
For example,
the presence
and forces
learned
together.
for what I might call
the 'Newtonian-mechanics-situation',
criterial
to
But one can learn
one to which Newton's
Second Law applies.
the Newtonian-mechanicalmass and force
recognize
only within
and vice-versa.
situation,

is

687
References
Apel,

and
"The A Priori
of Communication
Karl-Otto.
(1972).
of the Humanities."
Foundation
Man and World 5:
3-37.
in Dallmayr and McCarthy (1977).
reprinted
Pages 292-315.)

Dallmayr, F.A., and McCarthy, T.A.

Notre Dame:
Social Inauirv.
Davidson, Donald.
Proceedings
5-20.
47:

Understanding
(eds.).
(1977).
of Notre Dame Press.
University

the
(As
and

"The Very Idea of a Conceptual

Scheme."
(1974).
& Addresses of the American Philosophical
Association

and Empiricism."
(1962).
Feyerabend, P.K.
"Explanation,
Reduction,
In Scientific
Studies
(Minnesota
Explanation,
Space, and Time.
Volume III.)
Edited
in the Philosophv of Science,
by H. Feigl
and G. Maxwell.
of Minnesota
Press.
Minneapolis:
University
Pages 28-97.
Patterns
(1958).
Hanson, N.R.
Press.
Cambridge University
Philip.
(1978).
Kitcher,
Philosophical
Change."
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962).
Chicago:
University

of

Discovery.

"Theories,
Review 87:

Cambridge,
and

Theorists,
519-547.

The Structure
of
of Chicago Press.

Scientific

England:

Theoretical
Revolutions.

"A Function
for Thought Experiments."
--------------.
In
(1964).
Edited by I.B. Cohen and R.
Melanges Alexandre Kovre, Volume I.
Paris:
Taton.
(As reprinted
in Kuhn
Hermann. Pages 307-334.
(1977).
Pages 240-265.)
--------------.
ed.

of Scientific
The Structure
(1970).
of Chicago Press.
Chicago:
University

Revolutions.

2nd

"Second Thoughts on Paradigms."

In The
--------------.
(1974).
Edited
Urbana:
Structure
of Scientific
Theories.
by F. Suppe.
of Illinois
Press.
(As reprinted
in
University
Pages 459-482.
Kuhn (1977).
Pages 293-319.)
.------------.

Scientific
Press.
Lewis,

The Essential
(1977).
Tradition and Change.

"How to Define
David.
(1970).
Philosophy 67: 427-446.

------------.
tions."
Putnam, Hilary.
England:

Tension:
Chicago:

Selected
University

Theoretical

Terms."

Studies
in
of Chicago
Journal

and Theoretical
Identifica(1972).
"Psychophysical
Australasian
Journal of Philosophv 50: 249-258.
(1981).
Reason,
Cambridge University

Truth
Press.

and History.

Cambridge,

of

688

Quine,

W.V.O. (1960).
and John Wiley.

Israel.
Scheffler,
Bobbs-Merrill.

Word and Object.

(1967).

Science

New York:

and Subjectivitv.

Technology

Press

Indianapolis:

In Mind
(1966).
"Meaning and Scientific
Change."
Shapere, Dudley.
Science
and Philosophv.
and Cosmos:
EssaYs in ContemPorarv
of Science,
in the PhilosoPhv
of Pittsburgh
Series
(University
of
Edited by R.G. Colodny.
University
Volume III.)
Pittsburgh:
Press.
Pages 41-85.
Pittsburgh
Sneed,

The Logical
J.D.
(1971).
Reidel.
Dordrecht:

Structure

of Mathematical

Physics.

und Theoriendvnamik
Theorienstrukturen
(1973).
Wolfgang.
Stegmuller,
der WissenResultate
(This is Volume 2 pt. 2 of Stegmiller's
Berlin:
Philosophv.)
und analvtischen
Springerschaftstheorie
and Dynamics of Theories.
as The Structure
(As reprinted
Verlag.
New York: Springer-Verlag,
1976.)
W. Wohlhueter.
(trans.)
Taylor,

of Man."
and the Sciences
Charles.
"Interpretation
(1971).
in Dallmayr and
(As reprinted
Review of Metaphvsics 25:
3-51.
Pages 101-131.)
McCarthy (1977).