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 For a sentence S to express a proposition p in some group, there must be something like an agreement in that group to maintain a regularity between utterances of S and agents' believing p.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite pattern of use fixes a unique regularity, so 'agreement to maintain a regularity' is indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the regularity itself cannot be uniquely identified, no agreement can be specified as the one sustaining it, making convention-based grounding circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chomsky and others argue that linguistic meaning is grounded in internalized generative competence, not social agreement, since isolated speakers acquire meaning without convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If children acquire semantic content before participating in any group agreement, then agreement cannot be a necessary condition for sentence-meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bare regularities between utterances and belief states are insufficient to ground meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A regularity is a matter of convention when it obtains because there is something akin to an agreement among a group of people to keep the regularity in place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Convention-based analyses can account for cases that bare regularity analyses cannot.
      ?

      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.