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
    Even if Fitch's conjunction is an indexical expression, t... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Even if Fitch's conjunction is an indexical expression, there is no reason to think it is non-rigid

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Indexicality does not imply non-rigidity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kvanvig's argument at most establishes that Fitch's conjunction is indexical, not that it is non-rigid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kaplan's framework establishes that indexicals like 'I' and 'now' are paradigmatically rigid because their character fixes reference across contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fitch's conjunction 'p and p is unknown' contains 'unknown' whose extension shifts with evaluating context, making its rigidity non-trivial to assert without argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden of proof lies with those claiming rigidity for context-sensitive expressions, not with those questioning it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kvanvig's epistemic indexical reading entails that 'unknown' picks out different propositions relative to different epistemic communities or times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A term that picks out different properties relative to different contexts of evaluation satisfies the standard semantic criterion for non-rigidity.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    No other argument is better1 linked

    Related

    A term that picks out different properties relative to different contexts of eva...Fitch's conjunction 'p and p is unknown' contains 'unknown' whose extension shif...Indexicality does not imply non-rigidityKaplan's framework establishes that indexicals like 'I' and 'now' are paradigmat...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kvanvig's argument at most establishes that Fitch's conjunction is indexical, no...Kvanvig's epistemic indexical reading entails that 'unknown' picks out different...The burden of proof lies with those claiming rigidity for context-sensitive expr...

    Similar

    Kvanvig's argument at most establishes that Fitch's conjunction is ind...95%Kvanvig's argument fails to establish that Fitch's conjunction is non-...89%No other argument has been given for the non-rigidity of Fitch's conju...89%Kvanvig's argument conflates non-rigidity with indexicality86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fitch-paradox
    View source passageHide passage
    Williamson (2000b) defends Fitch’s reasoning against Kvanvig’s charge. He suggests that Kvanvig has no grounds for thinking that Fitch’s conjunction \(p \wedge \neg \exists x\exists t(Kxpt)\) does not designate rigidly. The reason Williamson gives is this. An expression is non-rigid if, when uttered in a fixed context, it varies its reference with the circumstances under which it is evaluated. But Kvanvig gives no convincing reason for thinking that Fitch’s conjunction, as uttered in a fixed con
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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