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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that MacFarlane's relativism conflates the pragmatic phenomenon of retraction with the semantic phenomenon of propositional truth-value variation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The pragmatic/semantic distinction itself is unclear—retraction behavior can reveal underlying semantic facts about context-dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.MacFarlane's account explains why certain sentences are retractable precisely because their truth-values genuinely vary with assessor's context, making the distinction artificial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If pragmatic retraction tracked only speaker commitment, it would occur equally for indexicals and non-indexicals; systematic differences suggest semantic variation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Retractions occur pragmatically when speakers withdraw assertions due to conversational norms, independent of semantic truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If truth-value varies with context, MacFarlane must explain why we retract rather than merely update context, which suggests pragmatic, not semantic, shift.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The same sentence can be retracted without semantic re-evaluation, suggesting retraction tracks speaker commitment, not propositional truth.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42