 Thus, tokenings of “horse” mean horse because there are (say, optimal viewing) conditions under which tokenings of “horse” co-vary with horses, and tokenings of “horse” caused by cows asymmetrically depend upon that fact. The intuitive idea here is that what makes “horse” mean horse is that errors and other tokenings of “horse” in the absence of horses (e.g., dreaming of them) depend upon being able to get things right, but not vice versa: getting things right doesn’t depend upon getting them wrong. The law in (i), so to say, “governs” the tokenings of (ii). (Note that this condition is metaphysical, appealing to actual laws of entokenings, and not upon asymmetric dependencies between epistemic criteria suggested by Fodor in his defense of Putnam we discussed in §3.6.2.)