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 rule-following considerations show that no fact about past usage determines a unique correct application of any term.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Community practices, dispositions, and training establish meaning through regularities that constrain acceptable applications normatively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's underdetermination argument trades on skepticism about semantic facts, not proof that no facts determine meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Determinate linguistic meaning persists across generations despite finite historical data, suggesting facts do determine correct application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Any finite set of past applications is compatible with infinitely many distinct continuations, making past usage underdetermine future use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Physical facts about the brain and behavior cannot by themselves constitute semantic content without additional interpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Correctness in rule-following requires grasping an abstract rule, not merely matching a pattern instantiated in finite historical data.
      ?

      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.