ABSTRACT
I’ve argued for a kind of split between what we do and what we say – and I’ve claimed this split explains much of the philosophical perplexity surrounding reference. My discussion of the issues, however, may have given the impression that when we step back and survey the situation we can escape the split: that we can, in a neutral fashion, describe our procedures, describe our referential talk, and see clearly how they don’t match up. But if philosophy and its vocabulary is continuous with the vocabulary of science and ordinary life, this split should not be so easily escaped.
