How is successful reference achieved? (for Vlad)

AchillesSinatra: To begin with, we're at a cocktail party....

Vlad says, "I think Smith is a nice guy"

There are a lot of Smiths out there.

Does Vlad successfully hook onto one of the millions of Smiths out there?

If so, in virtue of what fact or facts does he do so?

AchillesSinatra: Now, one obvious response would be...

"I mean Smith, you know, the dude we met last week in the strip club" - Vlad


Now, if this is how reference is successfully attained, it is attained in virtue of a "description". i.e.. the name "Smith" refers to the person uniquely identified with my description (" the dude we met last week in the strip club" )

This is what's known as "the descriptive theory of reference", in various forms, attributed for better or worse, to luminaries such as Frege, Russell, and Searle.

Then, along came Saul Kripke and ruined the cocktail party.....

AchillesSinatra: Saul Kripke argues convincingly that the descriptive theory of reference is false; one can successfully refer to a person (place, object, etc.) without a description that uniquely identifies that thing.

Consider (at the same cocktail party):

"I'm a big fan of Einstein" - Joe Sixpack

"Who do you mean?" - Vlad

"I mean, um, that Hungarian scientist who invented the atom bomb and came up with the theory of relativity" - Mr Sixpack


According to the descriptive theory of reference, inasmuch as Joe's description does not uniquely identify Einstein, indeed identifies no one (there is no Hungarian scientist who invented the atom bomb and came up with the theory of relativity) , then Joe fails to refer. Joe is talking about no one.



Kripke says otherwise. Joe Sixpack DOES successfully refer to Einstein (the one we all have in mind), but not in virtue of a uniquely identifying description.


So the question is: can people unable to uniquely identify Einstein refer to him? i.e. talk about him?

Or is Joe Sixpack talking about no one?



Now, the ramifications for science are these: Compare:


"Yeah, I really admire Newton's ideas on gravity" - Joe TwelvePack

"What do you mean by that?" - Vlad?

"I mean an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time". - Mr TwelvePack



Same rules apply. Under the descriptive theory of reference, Joe's description fails to refer -- by modern lights, there is no "attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time" -- therefore Joe is talking about literally nothing.

And so was Newton.

And when you're talking about nothing,.... well, not much can be said about it that is true.

AchillesSinatra: Well, if that's not clear.... try this:

"I love unicorns" - random dude

"You do? What are they?" - Vlad

"They are a horse-like creature with a single horn". - dude




As far as we can tell, nothing out there satisfies the description "a horse-like creature with a single horn".

Therefore, we might conclude unicorns don't exist. You're talking about nothing, dude.



And as far as we can tell, nothing out there satisfies the description, "an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time".

Likewise, we might be tempted to conclude, "You're talking about nothing, Sir Isaac".

AchillesSinatra: With all due respect, of course

VladTheImpala: Helloh. Oh hell. Thanks for prompting me... Well, I suppose we all go to the buffet for different things. I'm here to see if biologically grown mouse meat is worth having. And I took up the challenge / cudgel in the context of scientific belief. It is that context which entices me most to shake my thing, whereas this referential shindiggery-pokery, where does that help?

The point of those Positivists/Frankenfurters as far as I can tell was to try to pin down a way we can talk about all things philosophical in an irrefutable way... so that we can then later talk about truth in a way which settles things once and for all. How is that project going? I think they talked themselves into a corner, even Wittgenstein went all A for istic. Beef or mutton. See for miles.

William James (he of Pragmatism and the head of Manhattan Project) has my dog in this fight. Although not a theorist of language, he suggested how the meaning/truth we might be looking for is a consensus of best efforts so far... let's call that truth. Hey why not? The problem of induction says what was true yesterday might not be true tomorrow anyhow.

AchillesSinatra: Gosh, that's a lot of problems.

Let's begin with "all emeralds are grue" and see what happens.

VladTheImpala: Well the consensus is the aren't so I will accept that (i.e. they aren't) as true. Like Jamesy boy told me. And we will move on.... will we?

AchillesSinatra: Bring beer and arrive naked.

Men like that.

AchillesSinatra: "It is that context which entices me most to shake my thing, whereas this referential shindiggery-pokery, where does that help?" - Vlad


Conceptual clarity, for one thing.

It's also nice to know when you're talking about someone as opposed to no one.

And the pubs are all closed