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.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Descriptivist analyses(as used in philosophy of language and semantics): A theory of meaning that says words like 'gold' get their meaning from a description of what we think the thing is like—for example, 'a yellow, shiny metal.' Under this theory, whatever fits that description would count as gold.
fool's gold(as used in this philosophical example): A mineral called pyrite that looks like real gold but is actually worthless; people can be fooled into thinking it's real gold because it's shiny and yellow.
possible worlds(Leibniz's modal semantics, anticipating contemporary possible-worlds semantics): Worlds that have existence in a tenuous sense; fictional worlds used to characterize the nature of possibles that are never actualized
refer to(as used in philosophy of language and metaphysics): When a word or theory actually points to or describes something real in the world.

Based on where you are in your exploration