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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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