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
    Conflating the pragmatics of explanation with its semanti... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Explanatory talk is context-sensitive, which affects how we understand the 'because' in knowledge attributions

    Conflating the pragmatics of explanation with its semantics commits the use-mention error Frege warned against in distinguishing sense from assertion conditions.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sense determines what a statement means; assertion conditions determine speech act force. Conflating them obscures this fundamental distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pragmatic features (context, speaker intent) are use-dependent; semantic content is use-independent. Merging them commits the Fregean error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explanations succeed or fail based on semantic content, not pragmatic uptake. Conflating these criteria makes explanation analysis incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The sense/assertion distinction may not map cleanly onto semantics/pragmatics; explanatory power often depends on pragmatic context unavoidably.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's use-mention distinction targets linguistic reference, not explanation. Applying it here risks category confusion about what the error actually is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern pragmatics shows semantic content is partly constituted by use-conditions. A sharp semantics/pragmatics divide may be philosophically outdated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Explanations succeed or fail based on semantic content, not pragmatic uptake. Co...Explanatory talk is context-sensitive, which affects how we understand the 'beca...Frege's use-mention distinction targets linguistic reference, not explanation. A...Modern pragmatics shows semantic content is partly constituted by use-conditions...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pragmatic features (context, speaker intent) are use-dependent; semantic content...Sense determines what a statement means; assertion conditions determine speech a...The sense/assertion distinction may not map cleanly onto semantics/pragmatics; e...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit