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 Barb intended to communicate that she is not going to the party

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's framework requires distinguishing what is said from what is implicated, and Barb's utterance only conventionally encodes that she is working.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference that working precludes the party is a defeasible pragmatic inference, cancelable without contradiction (e.g., 'I'm working, but I'll stop by later').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A cancelable inference cannot constitute communicative intention in the robust sense required for Gricean implicature to be attributed with confidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson) holds that utterance interpretation is driven by optimal relevance to the hearer, not by cooperative maxims the speaker consciously intends to exploit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Relevance Theory, the inference that Barb won't attend is a contextual implication constructed by Alan's cognitive system, not a determinate intention Barb necessarily encoded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing communicative intention to Barb therefore conflates the hearer's inferential contribution with the speaker's intentional communicative act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Barb's contribution must be relevant to the purpose of the conversation (maxim of Relation)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Barb was being cooperative, she was trying to answer Alan's question
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Working is incompatible with partying
      ?

      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.