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 Positing distinct Sinne for coreferential names conflates the epistemic situation of speakers with the objective semantic structure of language.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The cognitive significance of 'Hesperus' versus 'Phosphorus' is linguistically real, not merely reflecting speaker ignorance—it's embedded in use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic structure must account for why rational speakers can rationally believe 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' while treating the names differently in thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Objective semantic facts include how expressions present their referents to users; presentation mode is a legitimate structural feature of meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic content should be objective and mind-independent, not dependent on what speakers happen to know or believe about references.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If coreferential names have different Sinne, we cannot explain why substituting them in belief reports changes truth conditions without appealing to speaker ignorance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between sense and reference was designed to handle epistemically opaque contexts, not to multiply senses based on speaker knowledge.
      ?

      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.