Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning to a word or phrase may belong to metasemantics.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Metasemantics concerns the extra-semantic facts that determine semantic facts, not claims about semantic facts themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A claim about the basis for ascribing meaning is itself a semantic or meta-linguistic claim, not a fact that grounds semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Stalnaker's distinction reserves metasemantics for causal-historical or social facts, not propositional claims about ascription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is grounded in I-language states, making such claims part of psychology, not metasemantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the basis for ascribing meaning is cognitive or computational, the claim belongs to the theory of mind rather than to metasemantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning is a fact about semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Metasemantics concerns facts about semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.