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 It does not follow from the normativity of assertion that meaning is normative.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rules of assertion (such as the knowledge rule) are pragmatic rules regulating the performance of speech acts, not semantic rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if such pragmatic rules are essential for the possibility of assertion, they govern assertion rather than meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The impression that there is a semantic obligation to speak the truth results from a conflation of semantics and pragmatics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's distinction between what is said and what is implicated shows that semantic content is determined independently of conversational norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Gricean accounts, the maxims governing assertion are defeasible and context-sensitive, whereas semantic meaning remains stable across contexts where maxims are flouted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If meaning were constituted by assertoric norms, irony and metaphor would alter semantic content rather than merely conversational implicature, which is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kaplan and Stalnaker's truth-conditional semantics assigns meanings as functions from contexts to extensions without invoking any normative constraints on speakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A complete compositional semantic theory can be stated entirely in non-normative terms, so normativity is not a constitutive feature of semantic content.
      ?

      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.