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 Bonjour and internalist epistemologists argue that semantic reference without any grounding in the speaker's epistemic access produces a kind of semantic blindness incompatible with genuine propositional attitudes.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Externalist cases like Putnam's Twin Earth show we successfully refer to H2O versus XYZ despite identical internal mental states, refuting internalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Children and scientists possess genuine propositional attitudes about atoms, electrons, and genes while lacking direct epistemic access to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Semantic blindness claims conflate understanding *how to use* a term with understanding *what* it refers to—these are distinct cognitive capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Propositional attitudes require content the subject understands; reference divorced from epistemic access is cognitively inaccessible to the agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When speakers cannot discriminate what their terms refer to, they lack genuine belief about those referents, only apparent or empty thoughts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Internalism correctly identifies that mental content depends on what is internally available to conscious reflection and cognitive processing.
      ?

      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.