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
    Kvanvig has no grounds for thinking that Fitch's conjunct... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Kvanvig has no grounds for thinking that Fitch's conjunction does not designate rigidly

    No other argument is betterPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kaplan's framework distinguishes context (fixing the agent, time, location) from circumstance of evaluation (possible worlds, times for extension).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fitch's conjunction 'p is unknown' picks out the same proposition at every world when the context is held fixed, satisfying Kaplan's criterion for rigid designation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kvanvig conflates sensitivity to context with non-rigidity, but a term can be context-sensitive yet rigid once context is fixed, as 'I' demonstrates in Kaplan's logic of indexicals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Soames and Stanley have argued that descriptive names and complex singular terms can be rigid if their referent is fixed at the context of utterance rather than re-evaluated at each possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The truth-value of 'p is unknown' is determined by the actual epistemic situation fixed at context, not by varying epistemic states across circumstances of evaluation, making it extensionally stable across worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An expression is non-rigid if, when uttered in a fixed context, it varies its reference with the circumstances under which it is evaluated
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kvanvig gives no convincing reason for thinking that Fitch's conjunction, as uttered in a fixed context, varies its reference across different circumstances of evaluation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kvanvig's argument only shows that the conjunction varies its reference when uttered in varying contexts, not when evaluated in varying circumstances from a fixed context
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageNo other argument is better

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    An expression is non-rigid if, when uttered in a fixed context, it varies its re...Fitch's conjunction 'p is unknown' picks out the same proposition at every world...Kaplan's framework distinguishes context (fixing the agent, time, location) from...Kvanvig conflates sensitivity to context with non-rigidity, but a term can be co...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kvanvig gives no convincing reason for thinking that Fitch's conjunction, as utt...Kvanvig's argument only shows that the conjunction varies its reference when utt...Soames and Stanley have argued that descriptive names and complex singular terms...The truth-value of 'p is unknown' is determined by the actual epistemic situatio...

    Similar

    Kvanvig's argument fails to establish that Fitch's conjunction is non-...91%No other argument has been given for the non-rigidity of Fitch's conju...90%Kvanvig's argument at most establishes that Fitch's conjunction is ind...88%Kvanvig gives no convincing reason for thinking that Fitch's conjuncti...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fitch-paradox
    View source passageHide passage
    Williamson (2000b) defends Fitch’s reasoning against Kvanvig’s charge. He suggests that Kvanvig has no grounds for thinking that Fitch’s conjunction \(p \wedge \neg \exists x\exists t(Kxpt)\) does not designate rigidly. The reason Williamson gives is this. An expression is non-rigid if, when uttered in a fixed context, it varies its reference with the circumstances under which it is evaluated. But Kvanvig gives no convincing reason for thinking that Fitch’s conjunction, as uttered in a fixed con
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit