Conversational evidence for rethinking meaning

Although experimental psychologists, survey researchers, and economists move in different circles than other kinds of scholars, whenthe two academic cultures meet, the rhetoric can become heated. For those on one end of the ideological spectrum, social scientists who fail to rethink the nature of meaning reveal the naive positivsm, if not intellectual bankruptcy, of their disciplines. On the other end of the spectrum, the same social scientists are seen as defending the ramparts against a trendy and dangerous form of relativism. My aim here is to step back from the rhetoric, and to examine more closely why people interested in the mind and individual judgment (especially scholars in my discipline, experimental psychology) should or should not rethink their assumptions about the nature of meaning. Based on empirical examination of language use in conversation, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that some rethinking is in order, evidence that even the skeptical positivist can't easily dismiss. But the evidence also suggests that there are circumstances where such rethinking may not be necessary.