Abstract Philosophy of language and computer science, despite being very distinct fields, share a great interest in natural language. However, while philosophy has traditionally opted for a formalist approach, computer science has been increasingly favoring probabilistic models. After presenting these two approaches in more detail, we discuss some of their main virtues and limitations. On the one hand, formalist models have trouble in acquiring semantic information from corpora and learning from large amounts of data. Probabilistic approaches, on the other hand, have difficulty in operating with compositionality, in dealing with contrast sets and hierarchical relations, and in distinguishing normative and descriptive views of meaning. We argue that a more fruitful dialogue between philosophers and computer scientists may help to produce a better approach to natural language and stimulate the integration of logical and probabilistic methods.

RESUMO Os “paradigmas” de Thomas Kuhn e as “epistemes” de Michel Foucault são frequentemente apontados como parecidos, estabelecendo ambos condições de possibilidade para o conhecimento. Mas quão similares são eles realmente? O objetivo deste artigo é investigar as semelhanças e diferenças entre esses conceitos, bem como suas funções na filosofia de Kuhn e de Foucault. Para facilitar a discussão, a análise foi dividida em uma série de tópicos, como “definição” e “escopo”. Por fim, examino alguns breves comentários que Foucault e Kuhn fizeram um sobre o outro, prestando especial atenção a questões relacionadas à natureza e ao papel dos paradigmas e das epistemes.

ABSTRACT Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigms” and Michel Foucault’s “epistemes” are often seen as similar concepts, in that both would establish necessary conditions of knowledge. However, how close are they to each other? The aim of this article is to compare these two concepts in detail. Firstly, I discuss the similarities and differences between paradigms and epistemes regarding a number of aspects, as well as their respective functions within Kuhn’s and Foucault’s approaches. The analysis is organized around a series of topics, such as “definition” and “scope,” with the intention of facilitating the comparison. Next, I examine some comments that Foucault and Kuhn made on each other’s work, paying particular attention to matters related to the nature and role of paradigms and epistemes.

RESUMO Mudanças de teorias são eventos centrais na ciência. Dois tipos principais de perguntas podem ser feitas em relação a eles: i) como os cientistas escolhem novas teorias? e ii) como o consenso é formado? A maior parte dos filósofos não costuma distinguir estas duas questões. Kuhn, entretanto, oferece respostas muito diferentes para cada uma delas. Aescolha de teoriaé explicada, por ele, por meio da aplicação de critérios epistêmicos, como precisão e consistência. O fato de que esses valores não prescrevem uma única escolha, contudo, leva-o a explicar a formação de consensopor meio de uma série de mecanismos socioepistêmicos, a saber: a pedagogia científica; a difusão e produção de conhecimento dentro da comunidade (o “movimento das ondas”); e a reestruturação do campo científico. Esses mecanismos são a base da epistemologia social de Kuhn, na medida em que não se restringem nem à sociologia nem à epistemologia, envolvendo tanto interações sociais como avaliações epistêmicas de teorias.

ABSTRACT Changes of theories are major events in science. Two main types of questions may be asked about them: i) how do scientists choose new theories?, and ii) how is consensus formed? Generally, philosophers do not distinguish these two questions. Kuhn, on the contrary, offers very different answers to each of these questions. Theory-choice, on the one hand, is explained through the application of epistemic criteria, such as accuracy and consistency; nonetheless, because these values do not prescribe a single choice, consensus formation, on the other hand, is explained through a series of socio-epistemic mechanisms, namely: scientific pedagogy, diffusion and production of knowledge within the community (the “wave motion”), and restructuring of the scientific field. These mechanisms are the basis of Kuhn’s social epistemology, in that they are not restricted to sociology nor epistemology, encompassing both social interactions and epistemic evaluations of theories.

Resumo Thomas Kuhn é conhecido principalmente por suas contribuições para a filosofia da ciência. No entanto, foi em grande medida à filosofia da linguagem que ele dedicou a última parte de sua carreira. O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar uma visão sistemática das principais ideias de Kuhn sobre esse assunto. Começo descrevendo sua teoria do conceito, em particular o que ele diz sobre termos para espécie (kind terms). Tais termos, aprendidos em blocos que formam conjuntos de contraste ou “taxonomias”, são aprendidos através de definições ostensivas. Em seguida, analiso as concepções de Kuhn de “significado” e “verdade”. Finalmente, discuto um segundo tipo de termo para espécies, não totalmente investigado por ele, que é aprendido junto com as leis científicas.

Abstract Thomas Kuhn is mostly known for his contributions to the philosophy of science. However, it was chiefly to investigations in philosophy of language that he dedicated the last part of his career. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic view of Kuhn’s main ideas on this subject. I start by describing his theory of concept, in particular what he says about kind terms. Such terms, acquired in blocks that form contrast sets or “taxonomies,” are learned through ostensible definitions. Next, I analyze Kuhn’s concepts of “meaning” and “truth.” Finally, I discuss a second type of kinds terms, not fully investigated by him, which is learned together with scientific laws.

Abstract According to a widespread view, Thomas Kuhn’s model of scientific development would relegate rationality to a second plane, openly flirting with irrationalist positions. The intent of this article is to clarify this aspect of his thinking and refute this common interpretation. I begin by analysing the nature of values in Kuhn’s model and how they are connected to rationality. For Kuhn, a theory is chosen rationally when: i) the evaluation is based on values characteristic of science; ii) a theory is considered better the more it manifests these values; and iii) the scientist chooses the best-evaluated theory. The second part of this article deals with the thesis of the variability of values. According to Kuhn, the examples through which epistemic values are presented vary for each person, and for this reason individuals interpret these criteria differently. Consequently, two scientists, using the same values, can come to a rational disagreement over which theory to choose. Finally, I point out the limitations of this notion of rationality for the explanation of consensus formation, and the corresponding demand for a sociological theory that reconnects individual rationality with convergence of opinions.