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 sentence can be 'strictly speaking untrue' as a literal assertion yet still express a true proposition under a paraphrase that eliminates abstract reference.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a sentence is 'strictly speaking untrue,' it cannot simultaneously express a true proposition—truth-value is not variable based on reformulation; paraphrase invokes different content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Paraphrase always involves interpretation and potential meaning-shift. Claiming elimination of abstract reference achieves the 'same truth' presumes the paraphrase is faithful without independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework allows any false claim to be deemed 'true under paraphrase,' collapsing the distinction between truth and utility, and threatening to make truth-claims metaphysically weightless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Nominalist paraphrases successfully convert abstract claims (e.g., 'numbers exist') into concrete ones ('it's useful to quantify over numerals') without loss of truth-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ordinary language often compresses complex concrete facts into abstract-sounding forms for communicative efficiency, suggesting the abstract phrasing masks rather than contradicts underlying truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If two sentences express identical empirical consequences and conceptual content, rejecting one as 'untrue' while accepting its paraphrase is merely verbal, not substantive.
      ?

      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.