En este articulo relaciono dos asuntos que no se relacionan comunmente en la literatura sobre Frege: el argumento de Frege sobre la interpretacion de las oraciones de identidad y su problema de referirse a las funciones. Primero expongo el argumento y concluyo que es plausible. Luego caracterizo las relaciones semanticas que el argumento le permite introducir. A continuacion trato el problema antes mencionado y muestro corno afecta a la semantica de Frege: esas relaciones semanticas se vuelven innominables y, por tanto, su seolantica resulta ser inexpresable. Finalmente considero una solucion posible a este probierna.In this paper, I relate two items not commonly related in the literature on Frege: Frege’s argument on the interpretation of identity statements and his problem of referring to functions. First, I expound the argument and conclude that it is sound. Second, I characterize the semantical relations which the argument allows him to introduce. In what follows, I deal with the above mentioned problem and show how it affects Frege’s semantics: those semantical relations become unnameable and, therefore, his semantics turns out to be unexpressible. I consider a possible solution of this problem.

En este artículo pretendo analizar ciertos elementos de la tematica correspondiente a la noción de parte temporal. En la primera parte estudio dicha noción y describo las tesis principales con las que los partidarios de la teoría de partes temporales se comprometen al respecto, En la segunda parte expongo algunas críticas contra la existencia de partes temporales presentadas por los partidarios de continuantes e intento mostrar que o bien estas críticas parten de ciertas confusiones que las hacen insatisfactorias o bien son perfectamente salvables desde el marco tetradimensionalista. Me centro especialmente en las criticas de J.J. Thomson, P. Geach, D. Mellor y S. Haslanger, que hacen referencia a las cuestiones acerca deI supuesto carácter instantaneo de las partes temporales, su existencia ex nihilo, la analogía espacio-temporal y la causalidad humeana.In this paper some answers to certain arguments against temporal parts are presented. The first part explores the very notion of temporal part and tries to describe the main tenets that friends of temporal parts hold. The second one develops sonze criticisms that friends of continuants have expoused against those entities and argues that most of these criticisms mischaracterize the problems at issue. The discussion focuses on J.J. Thomson’s, P. Geach’s, D. Mellor’s and S. Haslanger’s arguments about the impossibility of procesualism to escape from some problematic commitents like instantaneous parts, ex nihilo existences, time-space analogies and humean causes. Nevertheless I will try to show that some of this consequences do not folIow and that some other are seen not to be as threatening as they might first have appeared.

Armstrong (1983) poses two requirements that law-statements must satisfy in order to support the corresponding counterfactuals. He also argues that law-statements can not satisfy one of these requirements if they merely express regularities, although both requirements are satisfied if law-statements are interpreted as expressing relations between universals. I try to show that Armstrong’s argument can be raised against Armstrong’s own solution by adding three premisses to it: the inference thesis, the contingency thesis and a principle whose rationality I also argue for. Finally, I offer a more reasonable alternative condition for nomic counterfactual supporting which is satisfied by law-statements if they are interpreted as expressing relations between universals, but not so if we interpret them as mere regularities.

A comienzos deI siglo XVIII se origina una polémica en la Academia de Ciencias de París a propósito de la fundamentación deI calculo infinitesimal. Con motivo de la misma Leibniz presentará los infinitesimales corno ficciones útiles, noción que agrega polémica a la polémica y que habrá que precisar. Leibniz se desmarcará claramente de la idea de infinitesimal mantenida por sus seguidores franceses. Resultado de todo ello es un triunfo en la práctica deI cálculo infinitesimal y un alto en cuanto a su fundamentación.In the beginning of the XVIII century arises a discussion in the Paris Academy of Sciences about the justification of infinitesimal Calculus. In this line, Leibniz will present infinitesimals as useful fictions, a problematic notion that requires an accurate meaning. Leibniz does not accept the infinitesimal concept of his french followers. The result of the controversy was a triumph for Calculus, but a pause in its justification.

En este trabajo se define formamente el concepto de representacion en química utilizando homomorfismos desde estructuras algebraicas, que llamamos sistemas de tipo C, en otras estructuras especiales de símbolos muy relacionados con los que son habituales en la qímica experimental. Para la definicion de los sistemas de tipo C se ha seleccionado un conjunto minimo de relaciones y funciones, que son necesarias para expresar proposiciones significativas en química. Tambien se define un lenguaje formal de primer orden adecuado a los sistemas de tipo C, que llamamos L(C). EI resultado principal que se demuestra es que toda representación que verifica las mismas sentencias de L(C) que un sistema de tipo C, es necesariamente isomorfo a él. Se concluye por lo tanto que puede existir un problema linguístico subyacente en la aplicacion que de la mecaníca cuántica se hace en la química teórica.The concept of representation in chemistry bas been formallv defined by means of homomorphisms from algebraical structures, which we call type-C systems, to some special sets of symbols which can be related to the symbols ordinarily used in experimental chemistry. A minimum number of relations and functions, which would suffice to express significant propositions in chemistry, have been chosen to define type-C systems. A first order formal language L(C) adequate to type-C systems has been defined. It has been shown that each representation that verifies the same sentences of L(C) as a type-C system is necessarily isomorphic to it. It is concluded that a systematic study of the representation problem in chemistry is in order because a deep language problem underlies the application of quantum mechanies to chemical problems.

The essay begins with a detailed consideration of the introduction of incommensurability by Feyerabend in 1962 which exposes several historically inaccurate claims about incommensurability. Section 2 is a coneise argument against causal theories of reference as used as arguments against incommensurability. We object to this strategy because it begs the question by presupposing realism. Section 3 introduces and discusses a hypothesis that w'e call meta-incommensurability which provides the reason for the wide-spread accusation of question-begging and use of circular argumentation among the proponents of both realist and non-realist interpretations of science.

Se propone el uso de la Semiótica como herramienta integradora para investigar los aspectos fundamentales de los seres vivos. Como tal, la Biosemiótica abre nuevas perspectivas metodológicas para integrar un gran numero de fenómenos aparentemente no vinculados o incompatibles entre sí. EI principio básico es que la Biología, desde el nivel molecular al sistemíco, puede ser estudiada como comunicación, y los procesos biológicos como interacciones mediadas por signos. La vida es definida como una propiedad sistemica de la materia. La Biología es, en si misma y en todos sus aspectos, Semiótica Natural próxima al caos determinista. EI paradigma biosemiótico es propuesto como un paso hacia la formulación de una teoría sintética de la vida, que incorpore los componentes mecanistico-moIeculares, interpretaciones semioticas, y Ia historia natural de los sistemas vivientes.Semiotics is introduced as an integrative approach to investigate the intimate features of living systems. As an overarching concept, Biosemiotics offers new methodological perspectives to integrate a vast number of apparently unrelated phenomena. The basic tenet is that Biology, from the molecular to the systemic level, can be investigated as communication, and biological processes as sign-mediated interactions. Life is defined as a systemic property of matter. Biology is then, in all its aspects, Natural Semiotics with a proximity to deterministic chaos. The biosemiotic paradigm is intended as a step toward the establishment of a synthetic theory of life, incorporating the molecular-mechanistic components, the semiotic interpretations, and the natural history of the living systems.

La construcción de un lenguaje formal en el que sea posible llevar a cabo fonnulaciones sobre la verdad de los enunciados deI propio lenguaje se ha revelado en extremo problemático, puesto que los llamados enunciados deI mentiroso conducen a paradojas. En su libro The Liar, Barwise y Etchemendy afirman haber solucionado el problema mediante su semántica russelliana y semantica austiniana. Sin embargo, en este articulo va a ser demostrado que la semántica russelliana fracasa en solucionar el problema por las mismas razones que planteamientos clásicos suelen fracasar, y que la semantica austiniana fracasa totalmente puesto que esta semantica no contiene ningún predicado veritativo.Formal languages with truth predicates are seriously affected by paradoxes in the form of Liar sentences. In their best-seller The Liar, Barwise and Etchemendy achieved to convince a respectable part of the philosophical world that they have solved this problem by means of their Russellian- and Austinian semantics. The aim of this paper is to stop the rumour that the Liar paradox is solved. lt will be shown that Russellian semantics fails because of the same reasons classical approaches use to fail, and that Austinian semantics fails totally since it contains no truth predicate, i.e. in Austinian semantics it is generally impossible to express the truth or falsehood of a proposition.

Algunas de las objeciones más importantes contra la tesis de la incommensurabilidad, especialmente en su versión referencial se basan en la teoría causal de la referencia y, en particular, en la teoría de la referencia de Putnam acerca de los términos de género natural: de estl teoría se sigue que la referencia de los términos de género natural no se ve modificada por cambios en nuestras teorías. En este articulo examino la teoria de la referencia de Putnam y arguyo que esta no permite rebatir la tesis de la incommensurabilidad referencial. Mi examen se centra en la referencia de un tipo de términos de genera natural los terminos de sustancia y, en concreto, en la referencia deI término “agua”.Some of the most imporant objections against the incommensurability thesis, especially in its referential version, are based on tbe causal theory of reference and, in particular, on Putnam’s reference theory about natural kind terms; from this theory it follows that the reference of natural kind terms is not modified by changes in our theories. In this paper I examine Putnam’s theory of reference and argue that it does not countenance a refutation of the thesis of referential incommensurability. My examination concentrates on the reference of one sort of natural kind terms, substance terms, and specifically on tbe reference of the term “water”.

Does incommensurability threaten the realist’s claim that physical magnitudes express properties of natural kinds? Some clarification comes from measurement theory and scientific practice. The standard (empiricist) theory of measurement is metaphysically neutral. But its representational operational and axiomatic aspects give rise to several kinds of a one-sided metaphysics. In scientific practice. the scales of physical quantities (e.g. the mass or length scale) are indeed constructed from measuring methods which have incompatible axiomatic foundations. They cover concepts which belong to incomensurable theories. I argue, however, that the construction of such scales conmmits us to a modest version of scientific realism.

The incommensurability thesis is the thesis that the content of some alternative scientific theories is incomparable due to translation failure between the vocabulary the theories employ. This paper presents an overview of the main issues which have arisen in the debate about incommensurability. It also briefly outlines a response to the thesis based on a modified causal theory of reference which allows change of reference subsequent to initial baptism, as well as a role to description in the determination of reference. On such a view. the content of theories may be compared on the basis of shared reference, despite failure of translation. Two recent developments involving the incomnensurability thesis are also examined: (i) the taxonomic version of the incomensurability thesis found in Kuhn’s later writings. (ii) Hoyningen-Huenc’s neo-Kantian interpretation of Kuhn’s metaphysics.

Se trata de una consideraeión de la ultima propuesta teórica de Víctor Sánchez de Zavala para la Pragmatica, desde la perspectiva de sus fundamentos conceptuales, de la filosofia de la mente subyacente. Se repasan sus argumentos para sentirse insatisfecho con el enfoque intencionalista estándar de la Pragmática y se intenta reconstruir su coneepeión alternativa a este respecto, implícita en su nuevo marco teórieo. Lo que aparece, al final es una concepeión dinámica de las relaciones reciprocas entre pensamiento y lenguaje.The aim is to offer an overview of Víctor Sánchez de Zavala’s last theoretical proposal for Pragmatics, from the standpoint of its conceptual foundations, of the underlying philosophy of mind. His criticisms of the standard, intentionalist, approach are revised, and a reconstruction of his alternative view, implicit in his proposal, is advanced. The outcome is a dynamic view of the mutual links between thought and language.

En la actividad científica se pueden distinguir tres tipos principales de representación científica: proyectiva, subsuntiva y reductiva. Tras unas breves considcraciones introductorias, se presentan las características más destacadas de cada uno de estos tres tipos principales de representación científica y se abstrae a partir de ellas el esquema al que toda Teoría General de la Representación Científica (TGRC) se debe adecuar. A continuación se exponen las lineas generales de la principal propuesta presente en la literatura para desarrollar TGRC y se hacen algunas consideraciones criticas. La conclusión provisional es que esta propuesta tiene, al menos por el momento, el problema de ser, o bien demasiado liberal, o bien demasiado conservadora. Por último, se propone un enfoque alternativo a explorar que pretende estar libre de los problemas deI anterior.We can distinguish three main types of representation in scientific practice: projective, subsuntive and reductive. After some brief introductory remarks, we present the more salient characteristics of these three main types of scientific representation and we abstract from them a scheme that any General Theory for Scientific Representation (GTSR) must fit. Then we offer the general traits of the main existing proposal for a GTSR and we make some criticisms. The provisional conclusion is that this proposal is, as it stands, either too liberal or too conservative. Finally, we propose to explore an alternative approach which intends to solve these difficulties.