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
    Fitch's conjunction 'p and p is unknown' contains 'unknow... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    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.

    ?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.The truth conditions of 'unknown' depend on contextual standards of evidence, making its extension vary across epistemic contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Asserting rigidity requires argument because context-sensitivity is the default for many predicates without explicit modal operators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fitch's paradox exploits this ambiguity: 'p and p is unknown' shifts from true to false as contexts shift, revealing hidden assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Context-sensitivity and rigidity are independent issues; 'unknown' can be context-sensitive yet still rigidly refer to an invariant property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates semantic extension shifts with metaphysical rigidity—a predicate's reference can remain fixed across contexts.
      ?

      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

    Asserting rigidity requires argument because context-sensitivity is the default ...Context-sensitivity and rigidity are independent issues; 'unknown' can be contex...Even if Fitch's conjunction is an indexical expression, there is no reason to th...Fitch's paradox exploits this ambiguity: 'p and p is unknown' shifts from true t...
    +2 moreShow less
    The claim conflates semantic extension shifts with metaphysical rigidity—a predi...The truth conditions of 'unknown' depend on contextual standards of evidence, ma...

    Details

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