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 Davidson's triangulation argument is redundant if semantic externalism is invoked to rule out triangulation with automata

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Davidson rules out triangulation with automata by appeal to semantic externalism, then semantic externalism does the work of establishing the mind-world link
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the mind-world link is already established by semantic externalism, the transcendental argument itself is unnecessary
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Semantic externalism (Burge, Putnam) grounds content in causal-historical relations to the environment without requiring triangulation between two subjects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Davidson's triangulation argument requires a second creature to fix determinate content, but externalism fixes content through distal causal chains independently of any intersubjective triangle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If content-determination is already achieved by externalist causal chains, introducing triangulation adds no additional epistemic or semantic work, making it structurally redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's thesis of the indeterminacy of radical interpretation shows that triangulation with automata fails to fix determinate meaning no less than triangulation with creatures, undermining Davidson's exclusion criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Davidson must invoke semantic externalism specifically to distinguish genuine triangulation partners from mere causal relays, but this invocation concedes that externalism is doing the foundational work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Once semantic externalism is granted as the ground of determinacy, Davidson's transcendental move from triangulation to objective world-knowledge collapses into a restatement of externalist commitments already in play.
      ?

      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.