Reference is the relation held to obtain between an expression and what a speaker or thinker intends the expression to represent. Reference is a component of interpretation, the process of giving terms, sentences, and thoughts semantic content. An example of reference in a formal context involves the natural numbers, where each one can be taken to have a corresponding set-theoretic counterpart as its referent. In an informal context reference is exemplified by the relation between a name and the specific name-bearer when a speaker or thinker utters or has the name in mind. Recent debates over reference have concerned the mechanism of reference: How is it that we can refer? In informal contexts, externalists see the reference relation as explicable in terms of the salient causal relations involved in the naming of a thing, or a class of things, and the ensuing causal chains leading to a term’s use. Opponents of this view—internalists—see the reference relation as being conceptually direct, and they take the external approach to rely on untenable metaphysical assumptions about the world’s structure. Moreover, some internalists take the permutability—i.e. the consistent reinterpretation—of certain referential schemes to confound the externalist picture of reference. In this thesis I focus on the reference of theoretical terms in science, and I argue for an externalist treatment of natural kinds and other theoretical elements. Along the way I offer a defense of the externalist’s pre-theoretic metaphysical assumptions and emphasize their central role in the interpretation of scientific languages. The externalist approach acknowledges the necessary constraints on reference-fixing that account for the schemes we employ, and this, I argue, confounds the permutation strategy.

Definitions of sexual orientation are reflections of theoretical positions within the essentialist versus social constructionist debate. A cognitive sociological approach to analyzing the positions within this debate allows theorists and researchers to be aware of three distinct theoretical positions or thought communities: natural kinds thought community, social kinds thought community, and empty kinds thought community. Standard content analysis and grounded theory methods are used to analyze the principles, strategies, and practices each thought community uses to mark group membership into various sexual categories. The analysis reveals that each theoretical perspective is marking group membership differently.

Natural Kinds, Causal Laws, Magical Concepts: an Approach to American Magical Realism”. Throughout Latin American history of ideas one can find an alienated relation towards nature, which appears as magical, indecipherable and hostile. The two main characteristics of this idea of nature are the abundance of strange species and the unpredictability of events. In this essay I will argue that the first characteristic is a natural effect of the process of inductive learning under the conditions of the discovery and conquest of America, and that the second characteristic is in turn an effect of the way how the empirical expectations with these strange species were cast in causal laws. / La historia de las ideas en América Latina está atravesada por una relación enajenada con la naturaleza, que aparece como mágica, indescifrable y hostil. Las dos características principales de esta concepción de naturaleza son la abundancia de especies extrañas y la impredecibilidad de los acontecimientos .En este ensayo argumentaré que la primera característica es un efecto natural del proceso de aprendizaje inductivo bajo condiciones del Descubrimiento y de la Conquista, y que la segunda característica es a su vez un efecto de la manera cómo las expectativas empíricas con las especies extrañas fueron cifradas en leyes causales.

Borderline conscious creatures are neither definitely conscious nor definitely not conscious. In this thesis, I explain what borderline consciousness is and why it poses a significant epistemological challenge to scientists who investigate phenomenal consciousness as a natural kind. When these scientists discover more than one overlapping kind in their samples of conscious creatures, how can they identify the kind to which all and only conscious creatures belong? After assessing three pessimistic responses, I argue that different groups of scientists can legitimately use the concept of phenomenal consciousness to refer to different kinds, in accord with their empirical interests. They can thereby resolve three related impasses on the status of borderline conscious creatures, the neural structure of phenomenal consciousness, and the possibility of artificial consciousness. The thesis has three parts: First, I analyse the concept of borderline consciousness. My analysis counters several arguments which conclude that borderline consciousness is inconceivable. Then I explain how borderline consciousness produces the multiple kinds problem in consciousness science. Second, I assess three recent philosophical responses to this problem. One response urges scientists to eliminate the concept of consciousness, while another judges them to be irremediably ignorant of the nature of consciousness. The final response concludes that scientific progress is limited by the concept's referential indeterminacy. I argue that these responses are too pessimistic, though they point to a more promising approach. Third, I propose that empirically constrained stipulation can solve the multiple kinds problem. Biologists face the same problem because of their longstanding controversy over what counts as a species. Building on new arguments for stipulating the reference of species concepts, I demonstrate that this use of stipulation in biology is neither epistemologically complacent nor metaphysically capricious; it also need not sow semantic confusion. Then I defend its use in consciousness science. My approach is shown to be consistent with our understanding of natural kinds, borderline cases, and phenomenal consciousness.

This essay investigates Haukioja's (2010) notion of actuality-dependence. This notion is an attempt to explain the rigid behaviour of some kind terms; in particular natural kind terms like “water” and “tiger”. A definition of rigidity for kind terms has to take in account speakers' semantic intentions. This, together with the fact that actuality-dependence can only be applied successfully to a kind term if the members of its extension all share an underlying, non-trivial property, makes the notion of actuality-dependence face the problem of reference failures. A speaker's intention for a certain term to be actuality-dependent might fail, in the sense that the members of the kind picked out by the term in question lack underlying properties of the right sort. Three ways to solve this issue are shown to be unsatisfactory, ultimately leading to the conclusion that actuality-dependence cannot be the semantic feature that single out natural kind terms as semantically special.

Cette thèse de doctorat est consacrée à la pensée du philosophe américain Nelson Goodman (1906-1998). Nous y défendons, à l’encontre de la plus grande partie de la critique, une lecture métaphysicienne de son œuvre. Il est démontré que Goodman, dans tous ses travaux, développe une métaphysique technique et méconnue, dont les piliers sont le nominalisme, le pluralisme, le perdurantisme, l’actualisme, et l’universalisme méréologique. Cette lecture permet de réévaluer l’ensemble de la pensée goodmanienne. Elle établit aussi ses liens insoupçonnés avec la métaphysique analytique contemporaine / This PhD dissertation is dedicated to the philosophy of Nelson Goodman (1906-1998). We defend, against most critics, a metaphysical interpretation of Goodman’s works. It will be shown that the latter developed a technical and often overlooked metaphysics, whose pillars are nominalism, pluralism, perdurantism, actualism, and mereological universalism. This reading allows for a critical reevaluation of Goodman’s views. It also brings to light his unexpected links with contemporary analytic metaphysics

The distinction between institution types and institution tokens plays an important role in Francesco Guala’s philosophy of institutions. In this commentary, I argue that this distinction faces a number of difficulties that are not sufficiently addressed in Understanding Institutions. In particular, I critically discuss Guala’s comparison between the taxonomy of organisms and the taxonomy of institutions, consider the semantics of institution terms on different levels in this taxonomy, and argue for an alternative solution to the problem of how to reconcile reformism and realism about institutions like marriage.

In dieser Dissertation beschäftige ich mich mit der Frage, welchen Anforderungen wissenschaftliche Theorien über Emotionen gerecht werden müssen, damit sie sowohl begrifflich fundiert als auch empirisch fruchtbar sind. Zu diesem Zweck biete ich zunächst eine Analyse der wichtigsten Herausforderungen, mit denen wissenschaftliche Emotionstheorien konfrontiert sind. Anschließend schlage ich einen metatheoretischen Rahmen vor, indem wissenschaftliche Konzepte von Emotionen als Begriffsexplikationen von Alltagsemotionskonzepten konstruiert werden können. Teil I diskutiert die wichtigsten Herausforderungen für Theorien der Emotionen in der Psychologie und den Neurowissenschaften. Die erste Herausforderung ist, dass eine wissenschaftliche Theorie der Emotionen alle und nur die Phänomene unter den Alltagsbegriff „Emotion“ subsumieren sollte, die durch gemeinsame begriffliche Ressourcen erfasst werden können. Die zweite Herausforderung ist, dass jede Emotionskategorie gut koordinierten Gruppen neuronaler, physiologischer und verhaltensbezogener Reaktionsmuster entsprechen sollte. Ich behaupte, dass keine der derzeitigen Theorien der Emotion in Psychologie und Neurowissenschaft dieser Anforderung entspricht. Infolgedessen ist eine neue Theorie der Emotionen erforderlich. Teil II entwickelt den metatheoretisches Bezugssystem für eine Theorie der Emotionen, die den oben genannten Herausforderungen entspricht. Erstens schlage ich eine pluralistische Darstellung der Kategorien oder „scientific kinds“ vor, die induktive Schlussfolgerungen begründen können. Jedes dieser Muster bietet einen Rahmen, um verschiedene Arten von wissenschaftlichen Konzepten zu konstruieren. Ich argumentiere, dass das funktionale Bezugssystem für wissenschaftliche Kategorien oder „scientific kinds“ am besten zur Erläuterung von Emotionskonzepten geeignet ist. Folglich schließe ich mit der Empfehlung, dass Wissenschaftler*Innen funktionalistische Theorien von Emotionen benutzen sollten. / In this dissertation, I address the question of how to construct scientific theories of emotions that are both conceptually sound and empirically fruitful. To do this, I offer an analysis of the main challenges scientific theories of emotions face, and I propose a meta-theoretical framework to construct scientific concepts of emotions as explications of folk emotion concepts. Part I discusses the main challenges theories of emotions in psychology and neuroscience encounter. The first states that a proper scientific theory of emotions must explain all and only the phenomena under the vernacular term ‘emotion’ with a common set of conceptual resources and under an overarching generic concept of emotion. The second demands that each emotion category corresponds to well-coordinated sets of neural, physiological, and behavioral patterns of responses. I argue that none of the best contemporary theories of emotions in psychology and neuroscience overcomes these challenges. As a result, a new theory of emotions is required. In Part II, I develop the meta-theoretical framework to construct a theory of emotions that overcomes the challenges above. First, I propose a pluralistic account of scientific kinds based on different patterns of projection that various disciplines may take to justify inductive inferences. These are essentialist, historical, and social patterns. Each of these patterns provides a framework to construct different types of scientific concepts. I argue that among the frameworks for scientific kinds available, the one that is best suited to explicate emotion concepts is a functional framework. Consequently, I conclude by recommending scientists pursue functionalist theories of emotions over essentialist, historical, or social theories.

L’objectif de cette thèse est de fournir un cadre théorique pour l’analyse philosophique des pratiques classificatoires en sciences. La classification, définie comme étant un geste épistémique dont l’objectif est de fournir une description du monde par découpage et discrimination, et par mise en relation des catégories ainsi formées, est un point de rencontre naturel entre philosophie et sciences. La tradition des espèces naturelles, considérée en philosophie des sciences comme la principale approche disponible pour l’analyse des pratiques classificatoires, est toutefois lacunaire. Dans le cadre de cette thèse, je démontre les faiblesses de cette approche et le besoin de mobiliser d’autres ressources épistémologiques pour penser la classification. À cet effet, je m’inspire de travaux en philosophie de la mesure s’inscrivant dans un courant de pensée que j’appelle le cohérentisme historique. Ces approches mettent l’accent sur les pratiques inférentielles et sur la charge théorique des observations en plus d’insister sur le dynamisme scientifique et la multitude de facteurs qui l’influencent (principe de respect, impératif de progrès, développements théoriques, nouveaux outils [mathématiques ou matériels], nouvelles données, histoire du champ disciplinaire, structure sociale de la recherche, etc.). Une fois ce cadre d’analyse épistémologique présenté en détail, je le mobilise pour étudier un ensemble de pratiques classificatoires en sciences, soit les pratiques phylogénétiques contemporaines. La phylogénétique est la discipline biologique qui vise à retracer les liens généalogiques qui unissent les êtres vivants. Les gènes et organismes sont ainsi regroupés au sein d’unités taxonomiques qui sont par la suite mises en relation. Ce champ disciplinaire a longtemps été associé de façon intime et exclusive au modèle arborescent, lui-même associé à la théorie de l’évolution par voie de sélection naturelle : les liens phylogénétiques entre organismes sont généralement représentés sous la forme d’un arbre, soit l’Arbre du vivant. Or, les dernières décennies ont vu émerger, au sein de la discipline, un compétiteur : le modèle réticulé. En analysant les différences et similarités qui lient ces deux types de modèles (modèles arborescents et modèles réseaux), je démontre que la transition d’un modèle à l’autre n’influence que superficiellement la pratique puisque la majorité de ses déterminants demeure inchangée. En bref, cette thèse présente un cadre d’analyse philosophique pour appréhender les pratiques classificatoires en sciences. J’importe des principes et des outils issus de travaux de la philosophie de la mesure afin de développer une philosophie de la classification qui comble les lacunes de la tradition des espèces naturelles. En s’ancrant dans ce que j’appelle le cohérentisme historique, cette thèse contribue non seulement à la bonne compréhension des pratiques classificatoires d’un point de vue épistémologique, mais aussi à la bonne compréhension des pratiques phylogénétiques contemporaines et de l’importante transition qui éloigne cette discipline de son modèle classique, soit l’Arbre du vivant. / The main objective of this dissertation is to offer a philosophical framework for the analysis of scientific classificatory practices. Classification, here defined as an epistemic action that describes the world by breaking down phenomena into categories and by establishing relevant relationships between these categories, is a natural bridge between philosophy and science. The tradition of natural kinds, which is currently the main approach in philosophy of science for analysing classificatory practices, has important shortcomings when it comes to epistemologically analyzing scientific classification. In this dissertation, I highlight these weaknesses and the consequent need to develop a novel framework for tackling classificatory practices. To achieve this, I draw on an existing trend in philosophy of measurement, which I coined historical coherentism. This approach is centered on the analysis of inferential practices and stresses the importance of the theoretical charge of observations. It also focuses on the dynamic nature of scientific fields and on the variety of factors that determine scientific progress (principle of respect, imperative of progress, theoretical developments, mathematical and material innovations, new data, the history of a field of research, the social structure of the scientific community, etc.). After the detailed presentation and exploration of this epistemological framework, I use it to tackle a set of scientific classificatory practices, namely contemporary phylogenetic practices. Phylogenetics is the biological discipline that aims to reconstruct the genealogical relationships uniting living beings. Genes and organisms are grouped into operative taxonomic units, and these units are then connected within a system. Since its inception, phylogenetics has been intimately tied to tree-based models, with these tree-based models themselves tied to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection: the phylogenetic system connecting all living organisms takes the form of a tree, the Tree of Life. In the last few decades, however, an alternative type of models has gained more attention and support within the field: network-based models. Using historical coherentism, I analyze the differences and similarities between the two competing types of models (tree-based models and network-based models) and show that the transition from one to the other only superficially changes phylogenetic practices. Indeed, many factors that constrain these practices remain unchanged whether researchers use tree-based or network-based models. In short, this thesis presents a philosophical framework for the analysis of classificatory practices in sciences. I use various principles and tools imported from the philosophy of measurement to develop a philosophy of classification that covers the weaknesses of the tradition of natural kinds. By anchoring my work in historical coherentism, I contribute not only to our understanding of classificatory practices, from an epistemological perspective, but also to a better understanding of contemporary phylogenetic practices and of the significant transition that leads this discipline away from its classical model, the Tree of Life.

This thesis addresses key issues of scientific realism in the philosophy of biology and chemistry through investigation of an underexplored research domain: olfaction theory, or the science of smell. It also provides the first systematic overview of the development of olfactory practices and research into the molecular basis of odours across the 19th and 20th century. Historical and contemporary explanations and modelling techniques for understanding the material basis of odours are analysed with a specific focus on the entrenchment of technological process, research tradition and the definitions of materiality for understanding scientific advancement. The thesis seeks to make sense of the explanatory and problem solving strategies, different ways of reasoning and the construction of facts by drawing attention to the role and application of scientific representations in olfactory practices. Scientific representations such as models, classifications, maps, diagrams, lists etc. serve a variety of purposes that range from the stipulation of relevant properties and correlations of the research materials and the systematic formation of research questions, to the design of experiments that explore or test particular hypotheses. By examining a variety of modelling strategies in olfactory research, I elaborate on how I understand the relation between representations and the world and why this relation requires a pluralist perspective on scientific models, methods and practices. Through this work I will show how a plurality of representations does not pose a problem for realism about scientific entities and their theoretical contexts but, on the contrary, that this plurality serves as the most reliable grounding for a realistic interpretation of scientific representations of the world and the entities it contains. The thesis concludes that scientific judgement has to be understood through its disciplinary trajectory, and that scientific pluralism is a direct consequence of the historicity of scientific development.