Abstract
In this paper I show that the first part of Putnam's Twin Earth argument rests on equivocation. If we distinguish different senses of the word “means” we will see that Putnam presupposes in this part of his argument that the meaning of “water” on Earth is different from the meaning of “water” on Twin Earth. Once the equivocation is removed, it becomes apparent that the argument cannot be used in the proof that natural kind terms are nondescriptive.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
