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 Identity of intension (L-equivalence) is insufficient as a criterion of synonymy for resolving the paradox of analysis

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's intensional isomorphism already provides a finer-grained criterion than L-equivalence by requiring structural correspondence of designators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The paradox of analysis dissolves when synonymy is cashed out via intensional isomorphism, since 'brother' and 'male sibling' differ in intensional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the claim that L-equivalence is insufficient presupposes that no refinement within Carnap's own framework can do the required work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's critique shows that no notion of analyticity or L-equivalence is well-defined without a prior account of synonymy, making the paradox irresolvable at a deeper level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the paradox of analysis cannot be stably formulated without circular appeal to synonymy, the demand for a criterion stronger than L-equivalence targets a pseudo-problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's original distinction between sense and reference already handles informativeness asymmetry without requiring a novel synonymy criterion beyond what intensional logic provides.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Addressing the paradox of analysis requires distinguishing expressions that are L-equivalent but not synonymous
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A stronger, finer-grained notion of synonymy than L-equivalence is needed to make such distinctions
      ?

      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.