Putnam's argument depends on a use-based causal theory of reference, but this theory is itself vulnerable to skeptical scenarios where causal histories are indistinguishable from the inside, as Boghossian argues in 'Content and Self-Knowledge'.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
The chain of events and causes that led to something happening; the backstory of how something came to be.
causal theory of reference(Putnam 1981: 16-17; used as the key premise in Putnam's self-refutation argument against brain-in-a-vat skepticism)
A theory holding that one cannot refer to certain kinds of things (e.g., trees, vats) unless one has causal interaction with them or with things in terms of which they can be described
indistinguishable from the inside(Used to characterize the epistemic equivalence of BIV and normal human experience)
The subjective experiences of two situations are identical such that the subject cannot differentiate between them based solely on the character of experience.
knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.
reference(Distinguished from intension in the context of possible worlds semantics)
The actual-world referent of an expression; what the expression picks out in the actual world.