“Adams and Aizawa (1992, 1994a, 1994b) have pressed this point arguing that Fodor’s theory has the unintended result of making meaning more promiscuous than he intends. Their pigeons-example exploits a strategy of finding such asymmetries in nature that turn out to be ones involving semantics. Pigeons produce pigeon droppings (with a relevant law instantiated). Suppose that scientist also can produce these droppings (chemically qualitatively indistinguishable). Suppose further that the scientists would not be able to do this but that the pigeons do and that this is a synchronic dependence. Were all of these conditions met, droppings should mean pigeons on Fodor’s account (and not merely be natural signs)! However, it is clear that pigeon droppings are not semantically evaluable.”