Here are our conclusions so far: what the semantic conception of theories claims is that a theory provides us with a certain family of representational vehicles that are non-linguistic in nature, its models; however, the idea that representation in science is non-linguistic is unwarranted: for sure, the informal features of experimentation and the contextual nature of idealisations are hard to address using the correspondence rules put forth by logical empiricists, but this seems to point to a more pragmatic conception of linguistic interpretation, not to the idea that representation would be structural instead of linguistic. Having said that, I think that there is still a grain of truth in the semantic view, which is the following: Theories do not represent or describe nature directly as a whole. They are used to build models that represent it piecemeal. This, I take it, is an assumption that is shared by semantic and pragmatist conceptions of theories, and that is rather at odds...