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 Kripke's modal argument shows natural kind terms like 'gold' rigidly designate their actual referents across possible worlds, unlike definite descriptions which can shift reference.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Initial reference-fixing for 'gold' relied on ostensive definitions tied to observable properties, which could vary in other possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's argument assumes a sharp distinction between rigid and non-rigid designation that may collapse under scrutiny of how reference actually works.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Natural kinds might be conventionally constructed categories rather than metaphysically privileged, undermining claims about their necessary referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Empirical discoveries about gold's atomic structure (79 protons) wouldn't change gold's identity across possible worlds, supporting rigid designation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can coherently imagine gold existing without fool's gold, proving reference doesn't depend on superficial properties definite descriptions rely on.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientists successfully refer to the same element across theories with different properties, suggesting reference is rigid, not descriptive.
      ?

      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.