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 Content must determine reference for subsentential expressions, just as it does for sentences.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung shows that co-referential expressions (e.g., 'Hesperus'/'Phosphorus') differ in cognitive content without differing in reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If content is identified with cognitive significance rather than reference, two expressions can share content while determining different references in modal or belief contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates the semantic role of fixing reference with the epistemic role of expressing content, which Frege's puzzle demonstrates must come apart.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's Twin Earth argument establishes that 'water' has identical narrow psychological content for Oscar and Twin-Oscar yet refers to different substances (H₂O vs. XYZ).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reference is partly determined by external environment rather than internal content, then content and reference can systematically diverge for natural kind terms without contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim's supporting argument assumes a descriptivist picture of content that Kripke's modal arguments against descriptivism have given strong independent reason to reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If two subsentential expressions have the same content but differ in reference, then two sentences differing only by the substitution of those expressions would have the same content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two sentences which differ only by the substitution of expressions with the same content must have the same content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.For any pair of expressions that differ in reference, there exists some pair of sentences differing only by substitution of those expressions that differ in truth-value.
      ?

      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.