Skip to navigation – Site map

Saving Incommensurability: Semantic Theory of Meaning or Semantic Theory of Science?

Soazig Le Bihan
p. 97-105


Carrier’s paper is mainly a defence of incommensurability as “a sensible notion”, on the basis of the context theory of meaning. I shall here discuss his semantic reconstruction of the notion. His argument consists in exhibiting cases where incommensurability is instantiated thanks to a symmetrical proof of untranslatability, based on a distinction between two determinants of the meaning of a concept. I shall mainly show that a logical asymmetry in the distinction hinders the argument from achieving its goal. I shall then defend that a notion that plays a secondary role in Carrier’s argument, i.e. “the set of situation to which a concept is properly applied”, should be placed at centre stage for the determination of the meaning of a concept and thence for the appraisal of the notion of incommensurability. I shall finally sketch an alternative reconstruction of the notion of incommensurability, based on the semantic view of science instead of the semantic theory of meaning.

Top of page

Author's notes

Comment on Martin Carrier, “Semantic Incommensurability and Empirical Comparability: the Case of Lorentz and Einstein”. I would like to thank Robert Nola, as well as Anouk Barberousse, who have both offered comments and advice, and forced me to present my ideas in a much clearer way, even if they are certainly not the ones to blame for the theses developped here, of which I take on the responsability.


Electronic reference

Soazig Le Bihan, « Saving Incommensurability: Semantic Theory of Meaning or Semantic Theory of Science? », Philosophia Scientiæ [Online], 8-1 | 2004, Online since 23 June 2011, connection on 18 June 2018. URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/philosophiascientiae.594

Top of page

About the author

Soazig Le Bihan

LPHS, Université Nancy 2; Universität Bielefeld

Top of page


Tous droits réservés

Top of page