Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Kripke and Putnam show that reference is fixed by causal-historical chains, not by truth-maximizing interpretation of the agent's total belief set.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Causal chains are often vague, broken, or multiply realizable in ways that leave reference indeterminate, contrary to the theory's determinacy claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some intentional states (numbers, moral properties, abstract objects) lack clear causal-historical chains, suggesting the theory cannot be fully general.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Agents' own interpretive frameworks and communicative intentions do constrain reference in ways the causal account underestimates or ignores.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Natural kind terms like 'water' and 'gold' refer to substances discovered through empirical investigation, not definitions agents antecedently believed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Twin Earth thought experiments show identical belief sets can have different referents based on environmental causal history, not interpretation alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The causal-historical account explains how reference can be determinate even when agents hold systematically false or incomplete theories about referents.
?
How convincing is this?
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.