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
    Entailment accounts generate commitment to whatever any s... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Entailment accounts of ontological commitment handle implicit ontological commitment correctly, unlike quantifier accounts.

    Entailment accounts generate commitment to whatever any sentence logically entails, including logical truths and set-theoretic consequences far beyond intended scope.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a sentence S is true, then all logical consequences of S are true; denying this violates basic logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Speakers who assert S implicitly commit to its logical content, whether they consciously recognize it or not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'intended' from 'unintended' consequences is subjective and unworkable as a principled boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic commitment differs from pragmatic commitment; asserting S need not commit us to all its set-theoretic consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitively unreachable or incomprehensible entailments cannot ground genuine commitment or responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Folk logic and rational agency tolerate consistent compartmentalization of beliefs without requiring omniscient coherence.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Cognitively unreachable or incomprehensible entailments cannot ground genuine co...Distinguishing 'intended' from 'unintended' consequences is subjective and unwor...Entailment accounts of ontological commitment handle implicit ontological commit...Folk logic and rational agency tolerate consistent compartmentalization of belie...
    +3 moreShow less
    If a sentence S is true, then all logical consequences of S are true; denying th...Semantic commitment differs from pragmatic commitment; asserting S need not comm...Speakers who assert S implicitly commit to its logical content, whether they con...

    Details

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