Hilary Putnam's model-theoretic argument shows that for any consistent theory, there are multiple admissible interpretations mapping its terms to extensions, making 'Barack Obama is a Democrat' true under one model and false under another (Putnam 1980).

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Hilary Putnam(as a reference to a specific philosopher's arguments): An influential American philosopher (1926-2016) who made major contributions to philosophy of mind and language; he's famous for arguing that the same mental state could be realized in different physical ways.
admissible interpretations(the multiple ways a theory's terms can be understood): Different valid ways of assigning meaning to the words and terms in a theory—basically, different assignments that all follow the rules and don't break anything.
consistent theory(formal logic): A consistent set of formulas closed under classical consequence
extensions (or reference)(what the terms in a theory get mapped to): The real-world things that a word or concept points to; for example, the extension of 'dog' is all actual dogs in the world.

Based on where you are in your exploration