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 Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) provides a better account of attitudes than purely model-theoretic or purely sententialist approaches

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.DRS structures are themselves abstract objects requiring a theory of how agents access and token them, reinvoking the original intentionality problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fodor's Language of Thought hypothesis shows that positing representational levels does not explain intentionality but merely relocates the explanatory burden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.DRT's combination of possible-worlds semantics and representations inherits the frame problem from both traditions without resolving it from either.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stalnaker's possible-worlds treatment of belief already accommodates resource-bounded agents via centered worlds and self-locating belief without representational intermediaries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Adding a representational level to model-theoretic semantics produces a hybrid that violates theoretical parsimony without demonstrably increasing explanatory power over refined single-framework accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.DRT uses classical model-theoretic semantics of the DRS language to account for intentionality in terms of possible worlds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.DRT retains a representational level that models resource-bounded computations in practical reasoning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Combining possible-worlds semantics with a representational level addresses both intentionality and the failure of logical omniscience
      ?

      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.