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 merely possible child of Portman and Bush is not distinguished from infinitely many other merely possible children, making singular reference to it an illusion rather than a genuine semantic achievement.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Merely possible objects need not be distinguished from alternatives to be determinate; their identity can be stipulated by description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reference to indistinguishable possible entities succeeds if anchored to properties (e.g., 'the child with DNA from X and Y').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Singular reference's success doesn't require the referent's uniqueness—pronouns and indexicals succeed despite non-unique satisfaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Identity requires distinguishing features; indistinguishable items lack the basis for singular reference to one versus another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Infinite qualitatively identical possibilities cannot each be the referent of 'that child'—reference requires determinate content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our intuition that we refer to specific possible children may reflect pragmatic pretense rather than genuine semantic success.
      ?

      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.