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 Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Syntax actually includes much of what should properly be called semantics

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's c-terms are defined purely by derivability relations within a calculus, requiring no reference to truth in a model or domain of objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of a Tarskian satisfaction relation—not the presence of intended interpretation—is the principled criterion distinguishing syntax from semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, that Languages I and II have intended readings does not entail their governing metalanguage employs genuinely semantic concepts in the post-Tarskian sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's retrospective concession in 'Introduction to Semantics' that his earlier 'syntax' contained semantic elements reflects his own later terminological stipulations, not a discovery of error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Judging Logical Syntax by semantic vocabulary Carnap had not yet developed conflates a subsequent redescription of a framework with evidence that the framework was semantically committed all along.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Languages I and II are interpreted languages, not formal languages in the modern sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.While the syntactic method requires disregarding interpretations, a fixed interpretation implicitly remains in place throughout
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Carnap himself later recognized that his 'syntax' included much of what he would later call 'semantics'
      ?

      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.