Attempts to ground synonymy in interchangeability salva veritate fail in intensional contexts, since such contexts presuppose the very modal or cognitive distinctions synonymy was meant to explain.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Intensional contexts(technical expansion of sense and reference): Situations in language where you can't simply swap two expressions that refer to the same thing without changing the meaning—like how 'I want to marry the morning star' doesn't mean the same as 'I want to marry the evening star,' even though both refer to Venus.
Presuppose(what both foundationalisms supposedly do): To assume or take for granted something as true in order to make an argument work, without proving it first.
cognitive distinctions(in philosophy of mind and epistemology): Differences in what we understand or know about something, even if the things themselves are identical. For example, you might know 'water' means the liquid you drink, but not know that 'H2O' refers to the same thing—same substance, different understanding.
interchangeability salva veritate(in logic and philosophy of language): A Latin phrase meaning you can swap one word for another in a sentence without changing whether the sentence is true or false. For example, if 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are synonymous, you should be able to replace one with the other and the sentence stays true.

Based on where you are in your exploration