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 Direct reference requires a causal-perceptual link between the thinker and the object, not merely a social-linguistic chain (Fodor, Devitt).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Social-linguistic chains require some initial causal-perceptual grounding; otherwise, names just float free with no determinate reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The thought-experiment of 'Twin Earth' shows that sharing all internal states plus language-use doesn't guarantee same reference without causal history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Purely descriptive reference risks failures like referring to non-existent objects, whereas causal links provide robust, externalist constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Thoughts about historical figures we never perceived (Napoleon) seem to refer successfully, suggesting social chains alone suffice for reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can think about objects through purely descriptive means without causal contact, yet still meaningfully refer to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The causal-perceptual requirement makes reference to abstract objects, theoretical entities, and future events impossible, which contradicts our practices.
      ?

      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.