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 On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is grounded in I-language states, making such claims part of psychology, not metasemantics.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.I-language states underdetermine truth conditions; identical internal states can differ in reference given different external contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meaning ascriptions make normative claims about correctness; psychology describes only what is, not what semantically should be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Excluding social and historical context from semantics ignores how linguistic communities establish and sustain meaning conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Meaning must be located somewhere concrete; I-language states are the only internal locus available to grounding semantic facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychology studies internal mental states; if meanings are I-language states, then meaning ascription is a psychological inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Metasemantics asks what makes semantic claims true; it presupposes meaning exists, but doesn't locate its physical basis.
      ?

      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.