Home Linguistics & Semiotics Does the Twin-Earth argument rest on a fallacy of equivocation?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Does the Twin-Earth argument rest on a fallacy of equivocation?

  • Joanna Odrowąż-Sypniewska, EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: February 18, 2012

Abstract

In this paper I show that the first part of Putnam's Twin Earth argument rests on equivocation. If we distinguish different senses of the word “means” we will see that Putnam presupposes in this part of his argument that the meaning of “water” on Earth is different from the meaning of “water” on Twin Earth. Once the equivocation is removed, it becomes apparent that the argument cannot be used in the proof that natural kind terms are nondescriptive.

I also argue that — contrary to what Putnam is claiming — his account does not preserve the traditional assumption that intension determines extension. It is true that in his conception meaning determines extension, but his notion of meaning is very different from the traditional one.

Published Online: 2012-02-18
Published in Print: 2012-February

© 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 19.2.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2012-0024/html
Scroll to top button