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 Goodman's lack of a theory of pictorial reference is not an oversight but a deliberate limitation of scope.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A theory of symbol systems cannot be complete without explaining why some marks function as pictures rather than descriptions, which requires grounding reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's own density and repleteness criteria for pictorial schemes presuppose facts about which features carry meaning, facts that a purely structural account cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a genetic account of pictorial reference, Goodman cannot distinguish conventional from natural pictorial systems, leaving his relativism unmotivated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wollheim's objection that Goodman's account cannot explain why seeing-in is the relevant psychological mechanism for pictures shows the limitation is theoretically costly, not merely a scope restriction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A deliberate limitation of scope must be principled, but Goodman's routes-not-roots distinction arbitrarily excludes causal-historical factors that Kripke and Putnam showed are constitutive of reference generally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Goodman is interested in the 'routes' of reference—how symbols denote, exemplify, or refer in complex and indirect ways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman is not interested in the origins or 'roots' of reference—how certain marks became correlated with certain kinds of items in the world.
      ?

      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.