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 Premise 2 of the supporting argument embeds a Fregean theory of meaning that conflates sense with reference, which Kripke and Putnam's causal-historical semantics rejects.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Frege explicitly distinguished sense from reference; the claim misrepresents his actual semantic framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal-historical semantics faces its own problems (reference magnetism, circularity) that don't eliminate competing theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both frameworks address different explanatory targets; rejecting Frege doesn't require endorsing causal-historical semantics exclusively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rigid designator account shows names refer directly via causal chains, not through descriptive senses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment proves two terms with identical senses can have different referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's sense-reference conflation cannot explain how speakers successfully refer using incomplete conceptual grasp.
      ?

      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.