Carnap Ponders Canberra: Creating a Theory of Meaning Based on Carnap’s Criteria of Cognitive Significance and the Canberra Plan

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.33063   PDF   HTML     2,953 Downloads   3,895 Views  


Although logical positivism has fallen out of favor within many philosophical circles, one might remain sympathetic to the logical positivists’ critique of the meaningfulness of philosophical terms. In an attempt to address this open problem, I will propose an updated theory of meaning by combining the Canberra Plan methodology and Carnap’s four criteria of cognitive significance as explicated in “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”. I will argue that of Carnap’s original criteria, the notion of protocol sentences (C2) and verification (C4) remain problematic. I will further argue that protocol sentences can be replaced by step-one of the Canberra Plan. This shift towards Lewis’ more robust conception of O-terms as any known/old terms will still limit the types of terms that are meaningful yet proven to be less problematic than Carnap’s notion of observation terms. Additionally, I will argue for the replacement of verification with a modified version of step-two of the Plan. Due to the emphasis of locating a unique realizer within the Canberra Plan, I will propose two types of meaningful terms: meaningful with a located unique realizer (MLR), and meaningful but an absent unique realizer (MAR).

Share and Cite:

Magrath, A. (2013). Carnap Ponders Canberra: Creating a Theory of Meaning Based on Carnap’s Criteria of Cognitive Significance and the Canberra Plan. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 429-433. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.33063.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Nola, R. (Eds.) (2009). Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[2] Carnap, R. (2003). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language. In J. Baillie (Ed.), Contemporary analytic philosophy (pp. 155-171). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
[3] Carnap, R. (1995). An introduction to the philosophy of science. M Gardner (Ed.). New York: Dover Publications Inc.
[4] Friedman, M. (1999) Reconsidering logical positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173193
[5] Hempel, K. (2007). Studies in the logic of confirmation. In M. Lange (Ed.), Philosophy of science: An anthology (pp. 34-61). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
[6] Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[7] Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical papers. New York: Oxford University Press.
[8] Nolan, D. (2009). Platitudes and metaphysics. In D. Braddon-Mitchell, & R. Nola (Ed.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism (pp. 267-300). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[9] Ramsey, F. P. (1929). Theories. In D. H. Mellor (Ed.), Philosophical papers (pp. 112-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Schlick, M. (2003). The foundations of knowledge. In J. Baillie (Ed.), Contemporary analytic philosophy (pp. 141-154). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.