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
    Premise (I) of the anti-skeptical semantic argument canno... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Premise (I) of the anti-skeptical semantic argument cannot be used without begging the question

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's (Cons) principle presupposes semantic externalism, the very thesis needed to establish that BIV thoughts lack worldly content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any argument whose key premise assumes its conclusion's truth conditions commits the fallacy of petitio principii, regardless of metalinguistic framing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Burge's social externalism similarly cannot escape this circularity: establishing content via environment requires already knowing which environment individuates the content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wright's 'entitlement' framework shows that non-evidential warrants for framework propositions differ from question-begging only if the framework is already accepted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Premise (I) functions as a Wittgensteinian 'hinge proposition,' whose acceptance is prior to any semantic inquiry, making its deployment in argument epistemically illicit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.(Cons) is not disquotational
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The metalanguage expressing (Cons) cannot contain the object language to which utterances of 'I am a BIV' belong
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.(Cons) can express a truth at a vat-world only if its speaker is not in a vat-world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    (Cons) can express a truth at a vat-world only if its speaker is not in a vat-wo...(Cons) is not disquotationalAny argument whose key premise assumes its conclusion's truth conditions commits...Burge's social externalism similarly cannot escape this circularity: establishin...
    +5 moreShow less
    Premise (I) functions as a Wittgensteinian 'hinge proposition,' whose acceptance...Putnam's (Cons) principle presupposes semantic externalism, the very thesis need...The metalanguage expressing (Cons) cannot contain the object language to which u...The metalanguage used to express (Cons) is a language spoken only by non-BIVsWright's 'entitlement' framework shows that non-evidential warrants for framewor...

    Similar

    Warfield's argument (W) avoids the charge of question-begging that aff...88%Tymoczko and Brueckner propose anti-skeptical arguments of the same fo...84%There may be a Cartesian-style skeptical argument against Full-Blooded...83%Transcendental arguments that show what we must believe have anti-skep...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: skepticism-content-externalism
    View source passageHide passage
    According to Brueckner, since (Cons) is not disquotational, the metalanguage in which it is expressed cannot contain the object language to which utterances of ‘I am a BIV’ (as meant in (Cons)) belongs. But then, Brueckner argues, (Cons) can express a truth at a vat-world only if its speaker is not in a vat-world. Here, Brueckner seems to reason that since the metalanguage being used to express (Cons) does not contain the object language being described (vat-English), the metalanguage being used
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit