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 Deflationism faces a dilemma: it is either false or trivial.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The deflationist schema must be interpreted as being about either sentences or propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the deflationist schema is about sentences, it is false (as a necessary claim) because it ignores the linguistic fact that the sentence must mean that snow is white.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the deflationist schema is about propositions, it is trivial because propositions are defined by their truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tarski's Convention T reveals that any adequate truth predicate must satisfy 'S is true iff p', generating commitment to either sentential or propositional readings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Field (1972) showed that Tarski's definition fails to reduce semantic notions to physical ones, exposing that deflationism inherits this explanatory gap regardless of which horn it chooses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A truth predicate that neither explains nor reduces semantic properties collapses into either a false syntactic generalization or a contentless propositional placeholder.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gupta (1993) demonstrated that the Equivalence Schema generates paradoxes under unrestricted application, forcing deflationists to impose restrictions that themselves presuppose a substantive truth theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any restriction on the Equivalence Schema that blocks paradox must discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate instances, requiring non-trivial truth-theoretic criteria the deflationist cannot supply without circularity.
      ?

      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.