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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Cappelen and Lepore's minimalist proposition does not satisfy Recanati's criterion for 'what is said'.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Recanati's criterion requires the expressed proposition to be consciously available to the speaker.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.John would not be consciously aware of having expressed a proposition that is true if it was raining on Venus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.John would not at any remotely conscious level have planned for his interlocutor to reason from the triviality and irrelevance of the proposition that rain occurs to the intended meaning that it rains at Stanford.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Recanati's 'availability heuristic' requires that 'what is said' be recoverable through primary pragmatic processes, not theoretical stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cappelen and Lepore's minimal proposition is constructed via semantic theory alone, bypassing the cognitive accessibility that Recanati identifies as constitutive of saying.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition that requires philosophical argument to identify as expressed cannot satisfy a criterion grounded in pre-reflective communicative awareness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory establishes that communicated content must be inferentially accessible to hearers using contextual assumptions they actually possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Cappelen-Lepore minimal proposition—true regardless of rain location—would be identified by no rational hearer as the communicated content, since it violates the search for optimal relevance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion for 'what is said' that systematically excludes propositions hearers actually recover in favor of logically weaker ones severs the link between semantics and communicative success that Recanati's framework is designed to preserve.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42