Chapter 2 Study Questions

1. (§ 1) O’Shaughnessy says that he is inclined to say that there is an a priori limit to extending the will beyond the body, but he is not inclined to say that there is a logical limit to extending the will beyond the body. That seems to be a contradiction—but isn’t. Why not? What’s the difference?

When one states that "We cannot will the movement of extra-bodily entities", O'Shaughnessy sees this statement as one of misuse. It is not that the sentence lacks sense, he states, but that we cannot interpret whether is has a sense. This is an a priori limit rather than a logicial because the statement does not allow for one to understand what it means to will the movement of extra-bodily entities. If we cannot understand what it means to do this than we cannot understand whether there is a logical limit present or not.

2. (§ 2) In your own words, explain how a natural-kind term comes to be.

After a person or persons discover a natural-type thing needing a term, the discoverer(s) coin a term that can be used as a definite description. They must know what it is they are defining and which "what" it is. So long as it is singled out and employed in the future to mean that same what that the discoverers found, the term will be launched, and people are then commited to this term due to its initial use combined with its "designatum".

3. What is the difference between criteria for a term and “markers” (pointers) for its application?

The criteria for a term are the indepth real defining features of a natural-type thing. The markers are the more obviously seen indicators of a natural-type thing being of a certain term. For instance, when one sees a metal of a certain color, texture, and density, he or she will use these markers to categorize the metal as one kind or another. However, the criteria for a given term goes beyond the easily distinguished markers and explains what something truly is at its very core.

4. What are “contextual considerations” that play a role in determining the application of a natural-kind term?

Contextual considerations refer to the setting in which a natural-kind term was first established. O'Shaughnessy uses measles as an example. Since we established that term in the context of humans, we are reluctant to use the term when refering to animals. After a term is coined and is beginning to be applied more, people tend to use the given term in reference to things that are within the same contextual setting of the original usage.

5. (§ 3) What’s the difference between an injudicious use of a natural-kind term and its misuse? Your answer should explain why “sheer disregard of the epistemological ‘markers’ does not guarantee that one misuses a natural-kind term” (44).

An injudicious use of a natural-kind term occurs when one jumps the gun in determining what something is. This person has a correct understanding of what the term they use signifies and believe that what they have found is in fact that. This usage may be ill judged, but it is not misuse despite disregarding the epistemological markers since the user of the term understands and intends the meaning of the term. A misuse of a term is when the user of the term either does not properly understand the term or understands the term properly but uses it to refer to something that is not it fully aware of their mistake. In the former case the user may happen to use the term to refer to the correct thing, but does not understand what the term really means. This is still misuse because the user of the term did not intend for the given meaning. An example of the latter case is when one is drinking alcohol, but tells someone it is water in order to hide the truth. The user of the term water understands what water is, but misuses the term by refering to alcohol as water.

6. O’Shaughnessy gestures at two cases of misuse: “the case in which one mistakenly thinks one knows the meaning of a word and the case in which one uses a word to stand for what one thinks it does not designate … Agreement or not with fact is irrelevant” (43). Give your own examples of these two cases and explain why “agreement or not with fact is irrelevant.”

An example of the former case is when a child learns what a square is but goes on to call any four-sided shape a square. In this case, the child mistakenly thinks he or she knows the meaning of the word square. If the child identifies a four-sided shape that isn't a square as a square the misuse is easily seen. However, it is still a misuse when the child identifies the square as a square because the child does not understand what it is for a shape to be a square or why it is a square in this case and not in the others. It is by luck, not understanding and correct usage that the child is right. An example of the latter case would be a child finding his older brother's stash of cocaine. The older brother tells the child that it is a baggie of simple flour from the kitchen for a science experiment. In this case the older brother knows what flour is, but is using the term to stand for what he thinks and/or knows is cocaine. If he is right and it is cocaine, again the misuse is clear. However, it is still a misuse even if the powder turns out to be flour afterall and the older brother was tricked into buying it because as far as the brother knows it is cocaine, and he intended the misuse of the word.

7. (§ 4) What are the “markers” of physical action? (Again, what is a “marker”?) Which of these “markers” amounts to a “contextual requirement” and why? (Again, what is “contextual setting”?)

Markers of physical action include such things as a movement of a suitable part of an animal's body, intention and desire for the movement, and awareness that the subject has acted. Although these mainly seem like necessary features of physical actions, they can be considered markers of terms (indications that the object of a given term is present, in this case an arm rising is occuring when one uses the term arm rising) because without any indication of these markers one would not have knowledge of physical events. The contextual requirement is that the movement occur in a suitable part of the body (an arm rather than the hair). This contextual requirement limits the term physical action to disallow considerations of movements outside the body.

8. (§ 5) Does “the will can/cannot be extended beyond the body” have a sense? Explain.

It cannot be determined whether or not the statement "the will can/cannot be extended beyond the body” has a sense. This statement is a misuse of language in that it does not follow the contextual requirement of physical action. Since it is a misuse of language, we cannot understand the statement. Thus, we cannot truly determine the sense of the statement whether it has sense or not.

9. In your own words, what is “theory of meaning criticized by Putnam” (57)?

The theory of meaning Putnam criticizes is the assumption that we can determine what a natural-kind term encompasses by what we intend when we use the word. This is to say that since one has an internal concept of what a given term means, the extension of the term changes to fit the concept.

10. (page 58.) Go back to question 3.

We often think that we know the criteria for a term at any given time. However, new evidence may support different criteria for the same term. Criteria for a term is what is truly and deeply found in the depths of nature to be the defining features of a given natural-kind term. Markers, however, are what many consider criteria to be. This is the known features of the term. Markers are the characteristics seen that give someone a good idea that what they have found is of a given term. However, these markers may or may not end up being the correct criteria for the given term.