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 Conversational implicatures are cancellable without contradiction, whereas genuine components of 'what is said' cannot be cancelled without falsifying the utterance.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cancellation itself requires pragmatic competence, so the test may conflate what is cancellable with what speakers can pragmatically exploit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some genuine semantic presuppositions fail the contradiction test, suggesting cancellability is neither necessary nor sufficient for distinguishing semantic from pragmatic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Context-sensitivity means implicatures sometimes become part of asserted content, making the boundary between said and implicated unstable and unreliable as a criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Cancellation tests reliably distinguish semantic content from pragmatic inference in natural language use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.What is said determines truth conditions; implicatures add further meaning without affecting whether utterances are true or false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Speakers can explicitly deny implicatures ('I'm not saying he's incompetent') while maintaining utterance truth, but cannot do so for stated content.
      ?

      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.