The Meaning of Meaning

Imagining visiting another planet with another lifeform on it but without knowing that it differs from what we already know is what Hilary Putnam, an American philosopher whose mind was not only full of philosophical but also of scientific questions, is introducing in his text ’The Meaning of Meaning’ as ’Twin Earth’.

Falling from the dark and gloomy clouds above of us, rain started to drop on our faces. We assume it is rain but in fact it is not. It has the same appearance, smell and feeling of rain that we know fom our earth but if we take a closer look we will notice that the rain from Twin Earth does not share the same chemical structure as the water we are familiar with. This raises the question of if what we perceive as the same is truly the same.
What we are dealing with is called intension and extension. Intension refers to a concept or meaning that one has in mind and extension refers to something that exists. Applied to Twin Earth, the intension “water“ is used as a substantive of the chemical formula “H₂O“ whereas its extension could be “rain“ or other known forms of this formula such as snow. Although the water on earth and Twin earth might have the same intension by a person from earth, the extension would differ since rain or snow do not exist because they contain of H₂O and not ’XYZ’, the chemical structure for Twin Earth’s water.

Hilary Putnam meaning of meaning - are there terms who are more real or true?

The purpose of this blog entry is to review the ‘meaning of meaning’ by Hilary Putnam (1975) with focus on a particular topic. Namely, the blog intends to determine the extent to which the meaning of a word can be more real and whether there is something as ‘more real’. In his text, Putnam talks about the meaning of the word ‘water’ in a fictional doppelgänger-world. He argues that, even though, it is possible that we both call two slightly different liquids water we both mean the same. We both intend to call it water because the particular liquid bears sameness to what we know as water. If our “ostensive definition” (225) turns out to be false, we will not intend to keep the definition. We rather learn from it. Therefore, the extension of water stays the same and there is a meaning which is ‘more true’. Regarding the extension, he clarifies that “whenever a term is subject to the division of linguistic labor, the ‘average’ speaker who acquires it does not acquire anything that fixes its extension” (229). The evidence presented thus far supports the idea that a meaning can be more real. 

            One misunderstanding from my everyday life experienced by my sister is comparable to the statement in Putnam’s text. Being a person that is familiar with using neologisms or the ‘Jugendwörter des Jahres’, my father said to my sister that she should not only oxidize (rumoxidieren) all day. My sister got confused. Wondering about my father’s use of the biological term ‘to oxidize’, she told me that my father could not have used ‘to oxidize’ truly in the way he did. ‘To oxidize’ would describe a chemical reaction in which electrons are moved.  But that was definitely not what she was doing. She was doing nothing and she was bored. She did not react to oxygen nor started in any metaphorical way a chemical reaction. In this particular situation she claimed her understanding of the term “oxidieren” (oxidize) was more real and more true than the one my father used. But my father, on the contrary, argued that there are similarities between the chemical process and her doing nothing.

            As indicated previously, there probably is a more ‘real’ statement, but is there a more ‘real’ usage of a word? In order to resolve the question, we need to look at the chapter ‘other senses’ (239). Putnam illustrates the point clearly by explaining that sometimes the “’hidden structure’ becomes irrelevant, and superficial characteristics become the decisive ones” (241). This is exactly what happened in the case of my father. The hidden structure or process of oxidization is not relevant. It’s the superficial characteristics that make the statement comprehensible. And those characteristic is doing nothing and, concluding from this, being lazy. However, there is an inconsistency with Putnam’s argument. Putnam claims that we would all accept if we perceived a term in a wrong way and learn about it, whereas, my sister resists to accept my father’s usage of the word. Only, because she does not agree on his extension of the term and if we think about it, she is right. Biologists use a different extension of the term. Those considerations lead me to the question whether the point I made is reasonable or whether I might have overlooked a crucial part of the theory or not have fully grasped Putnam’s theory on the concept of extension? Either way, the inconsistency I am making you aware of, everyone accepting if their extension proof to be not sufficient enough, raises, additionally, the question to which extent the situation I refer to is comparable to the Putnam’s ‘water example’.

Putnam, Hilary. “Language and Reality.” Mind, language and reality 2 (1975): 215–271. Print.

Is there a scientific method?

I claim that there is no such thing as a scientific method that is applicable for all fields of scientific research. Although some students learn about techniques used when following “the scientific method” at school, this specific sequence of steps is barely practiced by scientists in their everyday work. Scientists do science the way it is convenient for their research. Sociologist work differently than chemists yet both can work in a scientific way.

            Nevertheless, a scientist can work more or less scientifically. Repeated testing of hypotheses and building models to explain new phenomena, for example, are considered very scientific procedures. Whereas testing a hypothesis only one time and claiming that the results are beyond doubt is probably not the most scientific approach you could have. Sometimes the same experiment can result in varying outcomes. Repeated testing is, therefore, a tool to ensure that the conditions for the experiment are always constant and useful for confirmation of a claim.

as

            As long as a scientist is able to logically reason why he has done an experiment in a certain way, it can be argued that his method is scientific. In other words, there are as many diverse scientific methods in the world as there are scientists doing science. Debates about what exactly the scientific method should be are a dead end since it is impossible to find a set of techniques that is suitable for all the sciences.


Aaron's Edit:

I (claim) [W - ^maintain]* that there is no such thing as a scientific method that is applicable (for) [prep - ^to] all fields of scientific research. (Although some students learn about techniques used when following “the scientific method” at school, this specific sequence of steps is barely practiced by scientists in their everyday work. Scientists do science the way it is convenient for their research. Sociologist work differently than chemists yet both can work in a scientific way. ) [M,E,W+,WF - ^Although students are often taught that there is a discrete sequence of steps any scientist must follow in order to ensure that their work is legitimately "scientific," no scientist goes about their work checking these steps off on a checklist. Scientists do very different things, depending on the demands of their specific fields of study and the questions they try to answer. Sociologists and chemists, for example, have very different goals and methods, yet no one would question whether either group's work was genuinely scientific.]† 

            Nevertheless, a (scientist can work more or less scientifically.) [coh,E - ^scientist's work can indeed have varying degrees of scientific viability.]‡  (Repeated) [det - ^The repeated] testing of hypotheses and [det - ^the] building [prep - ^of] models to explain new phenomena (, for example, are considered very) [E;W+ - ^: these are recognized as legitimately] scientific procedures. (Whereas testing) [W - ^Meanwhile, testing] a hypothesis only one time and claiming that the results are beyond doubt is (probably not the most scientific approach you could have.)  [E,St - ^antithetical to scientific reasoning.]§ Sometimes the same experiment can result in varying outcomes. Repeated testing is, therefore, a tool to ensure that the conditions (for) [prep - ^of] the experiment are always (constant) [W - ^consistent] and useful for confirmation of a claim.

            As long as a scientist is able to logically reason why he has done an experiment in a certain way, it can be argued that his method is scientific. (In other words, there are as many diverse scientific methods in the world as there are scientists doing science.) [M-not necessarily true] Debates about what exactly the scientific method should be are a dead end since it is impossible to find a set of techniques that is suitable for all the sciences.

[* Be careful with the plurality of words that can roughly be translated into German as "behaupten," such as claim, aver, avow, attest, maintain, suggest, contest, contend, among others. These words have basically the same denotation, but they have very different connotations. Claim carries the connotation that one is convinced of the belief, but that one lacks evidence to support that belief. That doesn't fit well in this context. Aver and assert would also work here.

† I understand what you mean, but there is a problem of argumentation here. Namely, you say in the first paragraph that there is no set of steps that could be claimed to comprise the so-called scientific method, and then in the second paragraph you delineate just such a set of steps. So I've had to improve the coherency. 

‡ Note that the phrase more or less, like the phrase mehr oder weniger in German, cannot be used to mean "of varying degree." It means approximately, roughly, nearly, almost, close to, about, of the order of, etc.

§ Litotes is a useful rhetorical device. As the Wikipedia entry notes, "Litotes can be used to establish ethos, or credibility, by expressing modesty or downplaying one's accomplishments to gain the audience's favor." But in some cases—like this present one—credibility is better served by clearly, directly stating a fact or opinion.]

Is there such thing as a scientific method and do we need it?

“Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” One hardly has to argue that the same astonishment about our surroundings, as Plato puts it in his famous quote, applies to science and scientists in general. But what is science? And where does science continue from thereon?

        For centuries certain ground rules on HOW to work form the basis of scientific work - the so called scientific method. The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific method as a “procedure (…), consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”. Whether this method is applicable in every field, one could consider to be scientific, must be reviewed and reevaluated in most cases. While testing and experimenting, coming up with results and devising universal laws based on the results of trials and hypotheses works in most natural sciences – assuming that the laws of physics and nature work in linear and constant ways – humanities work in different (and sometimes mysterious) ways, mainly for the lack of proof and complexity of the human mind. Also, when it comes to aesthetics (also a big part of humanities), opinions and taste are a thing, that tends to change over time.

         The same applies to receptions of theories, ideas, or persons in your field of study. But this does not only applies to humanities, as for example Phrenology, which by the way would be a great showcase in which scientific methods proved a complete scientific-ideology to be wrong, used to be “a thing” in psychiatric research and is nowadays considered a pseudo-science. Talking about pseudo-sciences: don't they also use some sort of scientific method and does the principle of wonder as basis of science (or philosophy) not apply? A cynical person could argue that in this case “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out”, as Tim Minchin quotes in his song “Take my Wife”, and draw the conclusion the method doesn't make everything scientific. But if a scientific method and an open mind can still lead to un-, oder pseudo-scientific work, how should we define science?

        The late Paul Feyerabend, whom I only name to show a different perspective without going into the depth of his idea, tried a different approach to the definition of science, away from the universal point of view that method is and should the base of science. His idea was that anything goes and the only thing that should form the basis of scientific work is ethics. But does ethics, or agreeing to only say and publish what is true, really differ from the scientific method? Both sides strive for a basic regulation of scientific work, whether it is through form (method) oder ethical agreements shouldn't make much of a difference, as long as the author explains his points absolutely truthfully. In the end method is only "something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it." as Percy Bridgman put it.

Jan Philipp Jacobs