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 If propositions are individuated by sense-equivalence rather than syntactic structure, the correlation W cannot be well-defined, since 'mentioning' a class is not a purely extensional relation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Extensionality can be preserved by defining 'mentioning' at the level of reference rather than sense, bypassing the alleged problem entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Well-definedness requires only that the mapping be consistent, not that the underlying relation be 'purely' extensional in all respects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many successful formal systems use sense-based individuation while maintaining well-defined correlations through canonical representation choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sense-equivalent propositions can differ in cognitive significance despite identical truth conditions, making syntactic individuation necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relation 'mentions' depends on intentional content, not just extensional properties, so it cannot be purely formal or truth-functional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If W correlates propositions to classes based on sense rather than reference, mentioning the same class via different senses creates ambiguity.
      ?

      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.