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 substitution failures in propositional attitude contexts tracked genuine sense-differences, we would be forced to individuate senses so finely as to make communication across believers impossible.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Communication can succeed with partial sense-overlap; perfect sense-identity is neither necessary nor empirically characteristic of speakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some substitution failures reflect epistemic, not semantic, differences; tracking genuine senses need not entail hyperintensional fragmentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fine-grained senses may be computationally tractable within cognitive systems; the argument conflates metaphysical fineness with communicative opacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Communication requires shared conceptual content; hyperintensional sense-individuation fragments meaning into private, idiolectical units.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' differ in sense whenever substitution fails, we multiply senses beyond what speakers demonstrably grasp.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Practical linguistic coordination presupposes rough sense-equivalence; fine-grained senses undermine the possibility of mutual understanding.
      ?

      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.