Dr. Alexander Murphy BA MPhil
September 1, 2026 until February 28, 2027
Affiliation: Corvinus University, Budapest (HU)
Research for a study about:
Our Words, Our World: A Humanistic Bridge Between the Manifest and Scientific Images
During my time at the IVC, I’ll be developing a new theoretical framework for linking our ordinary language conception of the world around us with the picture given to us by science. I’ll suggest that the key to this relationship lies in Friedrich Waismann’s insight that much of language is open-textured. I’ll suggest that scientific discoveries reveal the open texture of our language and that the tension we feel between science and our ordinary descriptions of reality is a symptom of this. We can further understand the relationship between the scientific and ordinary images of reality by closing open-textured concepts. I’ll suggest that doing this well requires thinking about how our concepts serve our interests. This, I aim to show, is an instance of doing philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline, in Bernard Williams’ sense.
This work will involve thinking about numerous issues such as:
• What is open texture? How do we close concepts/terms?
• What interests are relevant to closing concepts/terms?
• How do we balance conflicts of interests when closing concepts/terms?
• What does the account mean for past uses of open-textured concepts/terms?
I hope to answer these questions by appeal to Waismann’s original writings on open texture as well as the recent proliferation of work on the notion. Additionally, I hope to draw a novel connection between this notion and Gilbert Ryle’s notion of systematic ambiguity, aiming to show that closing open-textured terms requires doing conceptual cartography in the sense that Ryle espoused.
Lecture
A Humanistic Approach to the Two Images
Philosophy of Science Colloquium
Date: October 29, 2026
Time: 4.45 pm -6.15 pm CET
Venue for all talks: Lecture Hall 2i, NIG Universitätsstraße 7, 2rd floor, NIG/ Neues Institutsgebäude, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna
Abstract:
Sometimes our scientific advances demonstrate that our ordinary ways of speaking about the world are wrong. Sometimes, however, they show exactly how our ordinary descriptions get things right.
In this paper, I give a framework for working out which of the two cases we are in. I suggest we think about how science can reveal the open texture in our ordinary language, in Friedrich Waismann’s sense. When it does so, we should respond by thinking about what we want our ordinary talk to do for us. This will guide us in how to “close” our ordinary concepts which will, in turn, help us shape the relationship between our scientific and ordinary pictures of reality. As a case study, I’ll examine the exchange between Arthur Eddington and Susan Stebbing regarding the significance of the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom for our ordinary solidity judgements.
The major consequence of this proposal is that it requires us to reflect on ourselves and our lives as well as the world. To determine whether our ordinary talk is proven wrong by science we must think about what we want to do with our everyday speech. This requires taking a leaf out of Bernard Williams’ book. Namely, it requires doing philosophy as a humanistic discipline.