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
    Descriptivism about natural kind terms is false. — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Descriptivism about natural kind terms is false.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's Twin Earth argument shows 'water' refers to H2O even in worlds where speakers associate it only with superficial properties like 'clear drinkable liquid'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If descriptivism were true, 'water' on Twin Earth would co-refer with 'water' on Earth, but intuitively XYZ and H2O are distinct natural kinds with distinct extensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The best explanation of this referential divergence is that kind terms are rigid designators fixed by underlying constitution, not by descriptive content in speakers' heads.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's modal argument shows natural kind terms like 'gold' rigidly designate their actual referents across possible worlds, unlike definite descriptions which can shift reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descriptivist analyses entail that 'gold' could refer to fool's gold in worlds where fool's gold satisfies the associated description 'yellow malleable metal', but this result is semantically incorrect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theoretical identity 'gold is the element with atomic number 79' is discovered empirically yet holds necessarily, a combination that descriptivism cannot explain without collapsing the a priori/a posteriori distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If descriptivism were true, competent users of a kind term 'C' could come to know a priori that members of kind C possess property complex D.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are cases where a competent user knows something is of kind C but cannot thereby come to know it possesses property complex D.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There are cases where a competent user knows something possesses property complex D but cannot thereby come to know it is of kind C.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Descriptivist analyses entail that 'gold' could refer to fool's gold in worlds w...If descriptivism were true, 'water' on Twin Earth would co-refer with 'water' on...If descriptivism were true, competent users of a kind term 'C' could come to kno...Kripke's modal argument shows natural kind terms like 'gold' rigidly designate t...
    +5 moreShow less
    Putnam's Twin Earth argument shows 'water' refers to H2O even in worlds where sp...The best explanation of this referential divergence is that kind terms are rigid...The theoretical identity 'gold is the element with atomic number 79' is discover...There are cases where a competent user knows something is of kind C but cannot t...There are cases where a competent user knows something possesses property comple...

    Similar

    Meanings of natural kind terms are not in the head (internalism about ...89%Names and natural kind terms do not pick out their referents descripti...87%If descriptivism about natural kind terms is false, the characteristic...86%Descriptivism holds that the meaning of a natural kind term is a descr...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    The epistemological arguments against descriptivism have a similar structure to the modal arguments. Consider again the proposition (K). Someone who uses the term ‘C’ competently should be thereby able to come to know that (K) is true, in virtue of grasping the meaning of ‘C’. Thus (K) should be a priori. So counterexamples to descriptivism would be cases (i) where although one knows that some thing is of the kind C one cannot thereby come to know that it possesses the property complex D, or (ii
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit