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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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