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 Church's argument assumes that propositional attitude reports are fully transparent to co-referential substitution, a premise Frege's own framework was designed to deny.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Frege's sense/reference distinction was designed for descriptive content, not attitude reports, which may operate under different compositional principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even granting Frege's framework, it doesn't follow that Church's particular argument *assumes* full transparency rather than merely failing to restrict it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates what Frege's framework was *designed* to deny with what Church's argument actually requires as premises—an inferential gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Frege explicitly distinguished sense from reference to explain why 'Morning Star' and 'Evening Star' differ in cognitive significance despite referring identically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositional attitudes involve grasping senses, not merely having referents, so substituting coreferential terms can change truth conditions of attitude reports.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Church's argument conflates linguistic transparency with semantic transparency, ignoring that attitude ascriptions depend on how contents are conceptualized.
      ?

      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.