Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 19:48:06
In reply to Re: z... talk to me..., posted by 838 on March 9, 2006, at 21:05:04
So... Lets describe a scenario (twin earth) where things are just the same as the actual world except that the clear watery stuff that fills the lakes and falls from the skies, the drinkable potable stuff is XYZ. Then the thought is that the correct thing to say is that... the stuff on twin earth (in the desctibed scenario) is not water. Are you okay with this? Do your intutions go along with Kripke / Putnam?>>
yes.
So... The thought is that given that water = H2O in the actual world... In all possible worlds (in which water exists) water is H2O. So... It is metaphysically impossible that water = XYZ because the reference of 'water' is fixed by the nature of the stuff in the actual world.>>
Water is an indexical term before it becomes a scientific one. You can refer to it as 'this stuff here' and express a fregean sense with that. 'this stuff here'= water=H2O. perhaps we would want to restrict 'H2O' only to water purified for use as a reagent or something (Chomsky makes this point). But allowing for impurities, water=H2O=this stuff my jacket is designed to repel. Now I could have been abducted to twin Earth when I left the apt., and my jacket is spattered with unusual molecules. This would be surprising (but in New York anything can happen). If investigated it would be called something other than 'water.' 'This stuff here' would express a novel Fregean sense, when used in this context; note that I might not have access to this bit of sense (no priviliged access to senses- no wonder we spout so much nonsense habitually). I suppose this is basic externalism.
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:618106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060331/msgs/633215.html