Simplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinez

dc.contributor.authorLeahy, Brian
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-03T14:45:23Z
dc.date.available2016-08-03T14:45:23Z
dc.date.issued2016eng
dc.description.abstractThis paper responds to a problem, raised by Martinez (2013), for Millikan's explanation of the interpretability of novel signs in terms of mapping functions. I argue that Martinez's critique is a logically weakened (and hence more difficult to refute) version of Kripke's skeptical argument about rule following. Responding to Martinez requires two things. First, we must correctly understand the role of simplicity and elegance in choosing the correct mapping function for a signaling system. Second, we need to understand that mapping functions are descriptions of the features that determine the content of signs; they do not themselves determine the content of signs. Bearing these facts in mind, Martinez's concern is assuaged. However, we find that this position on the role of mapping functions is not fully consistent with Millikan's (1990) response to Kripke. I modify her response to Kripke and demonstrate that the alterations do not undermine her view.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedeng
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006eng
dc.identifier.urihttps://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/34931
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.subject.ddc400eng
dc.titleSimplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinezeng
dc.typeJOURNAL_ARTICLEeng
dspace.entity.typePublication
kops.citation.bibtex
@article{Leahy2016Simpl-34931,
  year={2016},
  doi={10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006},
  title={Simplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinez},
  number={4},
  volume={29},
  issn={0951-5089},
  journal={Philosophical Psychology},
  pages={503--516},
  author={Leahy, Brian}
}
kops.citation.iso690LEAHY, Brian, 2016. Simplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinez. In: Philosophical Psychology. 2016, 29(4), pp. 503-516. ISSN 0951-5089. eISSN 1465-394X. Available under: doi: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006deu
kops.citation.iso690LEAHY, Brian, 2016. Simplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinez. In: Philosophical Psychology. 2016, 29(4), pp. 503-516. ISSN 0951-5089. eISSN 1465-394X. Available under: doi: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006eng
kops.citation.rdf
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34931">
    <dcterms:title>Simplicity and elegance in Millikan’s account of productivity : reply to Martinez</dcterms:title>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/34931"/>
    <dc:creator>Leahy, Brian</dc:creator>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-08-03T14:45:23Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">This paper responds to a problem, raised by Martinez (2013), for Millikan's explanation of the interpretability of novel signs in terms of mapping functions. I argue that Martinez's critique is a logically weakened (and hence more difficult to refute) version of Kripke's skeptical argument about rule following. Responding to Martinez requires two things. First, we must correctly understand the role of simplicity and elegance in choosing the correct mapping function for a signaling system. Second, we need to understand that mapping functions are descriptions of the features that determine the content of signs; they do not themselves determine the content of signs. Bearing these facts in mind, Martinez's concern is assuaged. However, we find that this position on the role of mapping functions is not fully consistent with Millikan's (1990) response to Kripke. I modify her response to Kripke and demonstrate that the alterations do not undermine her view.</dcterms:abstract>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2016</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-08-03T14:45:23Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:contributor>Leahy, Brian</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
kops.flag.knbibliographytrue
kops.sourcefieldPhilosophical Psychology. 2016, <b>29</b>(4), pp. 503-516. ISSN 0951-5089. eISSN 1465-394X. Available under: doi: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006deu
kops.sourcefield.plainPhilosophical Psychology. 2016, 29(4), pp. 503-516. ISSN 0951-5089. eISSN 1465-394X. Available under: doi: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006deu
kops.sourcefield.plainPhilosophical Psychology. 2016, 29(4), pp. 503-516. ISSN 0951-5089. eISSN 1465-394X. Available under: doi: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1085006eng
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1129e456-aa8e-4228-820f-f7f7fc2082b5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery1129e456-aa8e-4228-820f-f7f7fc2082b5
source.bibliographicInfo.fromPage503eng
source.bibliographicInfo.issue4eng
source.bibliographicInfo.toPage516eng
source.bibliographicInfo.volume29eng
source.identifier.eissn1465-394Xeng
source.identifier.issn0951-5089eng
source.periodicalTitlePhilosophical Psychologyeng

Dateien