Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 223–239 | Cite as

Intuitions, Disagreement and Referential Pluralism



Mallon, Machery, Nichols and Stich (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 332–356, 2009) argue that the use of intuitions in the philosophy of reference is problematic as recent studies show intuitions about reference vary both within and between cultures. I use some ideas from the recent literature on disagreement and truth relativism to shed light on the debate concerning the appropriate reaction to these studies. Mallon et al. argue that variation is problematic because if one tries to use intuitions which vary to find the correct theory of reference one will end up endorsing an absurd position: referential pluralism. I argue that there is hope for intuition-based philosophy of reference. One can avoid endorsing referential pluralism (as Mallon et al. understand it). Furthermore, referential pluralism may not be so absurd after all.


  1. Adams, R.M. 1979. Divine command ethics modified again. Journal of Religious Ethics 7(1): 66–79.Google Scholar
  2. Appiah, K.A. 1995. The uncompleted argument: Du bois and the illusion of race. In Overcoming Racism and Sexism, eds. L.A. Bell and D. Blumenfeld, 59–78. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Baz, A. 2012. When words are called for: a defense of ordinary language philosophy. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, R. 1988. How to be a moral realist. In Essays on Moral Realism, eds. G. Sayre-McCord, 181–228. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Churchland, P.M. 1981. Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.Google Scholar
  6. Cohnitz, D., and J. Haukioja. 2012. Meta-externalism vs meta-internalism in the study of reference. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91(3): 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, M. 2009. Experimental philosophy and the theory of reference. Mind & Language 24(4): 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devitt, M. 2012. Whither experimental semantics? Theoria 27(1): 5–36.Google Scholar
  9. Egan, A. 2010. 10. Disputing about taste. Disagreement 1(9): 247–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egan, A., J. Hawthorne, and B. Weatherson. 2005. Epistemic modals in context. In Contextualism in philosophy: knowledge, meaning and truth, eds. G. Preyer and G. Peter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P.K. 1962. Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3: Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, eds. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, 28–97. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Field, H. 1986. The deflationary concept of truth. In Fact, Science, and Value, eds. G. MacDonald and C. Wright, 55–117. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Field, H. 1994. Deflationist views of meaning and content. Mind 103: 249–285. Google Scholar
  14. Genone, J. 2012. Theories of reference and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass 7(2): 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horwich, P. 1990. Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Huvenes, T.T. 2012. Varieties of disagreement and predicates of taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90(1): 167–181.Google Scholar
  17. Ichikawa, J., I. Maitra, and B. Weatherson. 2012. In defense of a Kripkean Dogma. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85(1): 56–68.Google Scholar
  18. Kölbel, M. 2002. Truth without objectivity. In International library of philosophy, 1st ed, eds. J. Bermúdez, T. Crane, and P. Sullivan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kölbel, M. 2004. III—Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104(1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lam, B. 2010. Are Cantonese-speakers really descriptivists? Revisiting cross-cultural semantics. Cognition 115(2): 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166(2): 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lycan, W. 1988. Judgement and justification. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. MacFarlane, J. 2003. Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53(212): 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacFarlane, J. 2005a. The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In Oxford studies in epistemology, eds. T.S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. MacFarlane, J. 2005b. Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105: 305–323.Google Scholar
  28. MacFarlane, J. 2007a. Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies 132(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacFarlane, J. 2007b. Semantic minimalism and nonindexical contextualism. In Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: new essays on semantics and pragmatics, eds. G. Preyer and G. Peter, 240–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. MacFarlane, J. 2009. Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese 166(2): 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacFarlane, J. 2014. Assessment sensivity: relative truth and its application. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Draft available at:
  32. Machery, E. 2012. Expertise and intuitions about reference. Theoria 27(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
  33. Machery, E., M. Deutsch, R. Mallon, S. Nichols, J. Sytsma, and S.P. Stich. 2010. Semantic intuitions: reply to Lam. Cognition 117(3): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Machery, E., R. Mallon, S. Nichols, and S.P. Stich. 2004. Semantics. Cognition: Cross-Cultural Style. 92.Google Scholar
  35. Machery, E., R. Mallon, S. Nichols, and S.P. Stich. 2013. If folk intuitions vary, then what? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86(3): 618–635.Google Scholar
  36. Machery, E., C.Y. Olivola, and M. De Blanc. 2009. Linguistic and metalinguistic intuitions in the philosophy of language. Analysis 69(4): 689–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maitra, I. 2007. How and why to be a moderate contextualist. In Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: new essays on semantics and pragmatics, eds. G. Preyer and G. Peter. Oxford, GBR: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mallon, R., E. Machery, S. Nichols, and S. Stich. 2009. Against arguments from reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martí, G. 2009. Against semantic multi-culturalism. Analysis 69(1): 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ponte, M. 2011. Faults, disagreements and taste. ILCLI. University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  41. Richard, M. 2004. Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies 119(1): 215–242.Google Scholar
  42. Richard, M. 2008. When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schafer, K. 2011. Faultless disagreement and aesthetic realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82(2): 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sosa, E. 2009. A defense of the use of intuitions in philosophy. In Stich and his critics, eds. D. Murphy and M. Bishop, 101–112. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Stephenson, T. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4): 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stich, S. 1985. From folk psychology to cognitive science: a case against belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stojanovic, I. 2007. Talking about taste: disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Systma, J., and J. Livengood. 2008/2009. A new perspective concerning experiments on semantic intuitions. In 24th Regional Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science. Boulder: Society for Philosophy and Psychology.Google Scholar
  49. Zack, N. 1993. Race and Mixed Race. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations