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 Frege's puzzle about cognitive significance shows that coreferential terms can differ in meaning based on the epistemic states of speakers.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive significance may reflect metalinguistic beliefs about terms rather than differences in the terms' actual meanings themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meaning can be purely referential while informativeness arises from asymmetric speaker knowledge, without requiring meaning to vary with epistemic states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Appealing to epistemic states makes meaning subjective and speaker-relative, conflicting with meaning's role in objective semantic truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Speakers can rationally believe 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is informative, which requires different cognitive contents despite identical referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meaning determines reference, so if reference alone determined meaning, Frege's informativeness puzzle would be unsolvable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Epistemic modes of presentation (how we know about objects) are psychologically real and shape how speakers understand coreferential terms.
      ?

      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.