Robinson Guitarrari

The understanding of conceptual relativity in Putnam’s and Kuhn’s writings should not be restricted to the claim that the existence is relative to, but not in virtue of, a conceptual scheme. This approach does not capture some significant differences between their positions about the notion of conceptual scheme. We understand that the thesis of conceptual relativity contains a statement about the close relationship between conceptual scheme and content, and another claim about the differences between conceptual schemes. Based on these two formal requirements, we propose a reconstruction of the Putnam’s treatment of it and show how it can be understood from Kuhn’s perspective of scientific development. We defend that, although both fulfill a critical role against metaphysical realism, they are applied to distinct domains: while Putnam’s conceptual relativity is in the record of the conceptual structure of scientific theories and presupposes a choice between cognitively equivalent conceptual schemes, Kuhn considers the field of the dynamics of development of science. Thus, we note relevant scientific cases of conceptual relativity that do not involve semantic incommensurability.

RESUMO: Hilary Putnam procurou solapar o relativismo cognitivo, mediante acusações de incoerência autodestrutiva. A concepção de Thomas Kuhn de desenvolvimento do conhecimento científico ocupa um lugar de destaque nesse empreendimento crítico, e a incomensurabilidade entre paradigmas rivais constitui o núcleo da disputa. Putnam afirmou que a incomensurabilidade é autorrefutante, levando em conta apenas sua dimensão semântica. Este artigo examina essa investida antirrelativista. Considero dois sentidos de autorrefutação, o material e o formal, e defendo que essa acusação não atinge a referida formulação semântica. Adicionalmente, mostro que a dimensão epistemológica da incomensurabilidade também não é afetada. ABSTRACT: Hilary Putnam sought to undermine cognitive relativism by charging it with self- destructive incoherence. Thomas Kuhn's conception of the development of scientific knowledge occupies a prominent place in that critical endeavor, and the incommensurability between rival paradigms constitutes the core of the dispute. Putnam claimed that incommensurability is self- refuting, taking into account only its semantic dimension. This article examines this anti-relativist attack. I consider two senses of self-refutation, the material and the formal, and argue that they do not affect the semantic formulation of incommensurability. Additionally, I show that the epistemological dimension of incommensurability is also unaffected.