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
    Putnam's argument, as presented, fails to establish that ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Putnam's argument, as presented, fails to establish that we are not brains in a vat

    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 semantic externalism entails that BIV-English 'vat' refers to vat-images, not vats, so BIV utterances of 'brain in a vat' are systematically about different objects than we intend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument that shows only that a BIV's self-referential denial is vacuously true leaves open whether normal English speakers are BIVs, since it presupposes the very distinction it needs to establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Establishing that BIVs cannot truly assert their BIV-hood does not entail that non-BIVs exist, as Stroud's challenge in 'The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism' demonstrates the gap between semantic and metaphysical conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A transcendental argument that relies on disputed externalist semantic premises cannot claim the kind of certainty needed to defeat radical skepticism without begging the question against the skeptic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.What Putnam's argument actually establishes is that a brain in a vat's utterance of 'We are not brains in a vat' would be true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A brain in a vat's utterance of 'We are not brains in a vat' does not mean that we are not brains in a vat
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conclusion that is irrelevant to whether we are actually brains in a vat cannot establish that we are not brains in a vat
      ?

      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

    A brain in a vat's utterance of 'We are not brains in a vat' does not mean that ...A conclusion that is irrelevant to whether we are actually brains in a vat canno...A transcendental argument that relies on disputed externalist semantic premises ...An argument that shows only that a BIV's self-referential denial is vacuously tr...
    +4 moreShow less
    Establishing that BIVs cannot truly assert their BIV-hood does not entail that n...Putnam's argument depends on a use-based causal theory of reference, but this th...Putnam's semantic externalism entails that BIV-English 'vat' refers to vat-image...What Putnam's argument actually establishes is that a brain in a vat's utterance...

    Similar

    A brain in a vat's utterance of 'We are not brains in a vat' does not ...93%A conclusion that is irrelevant to whether we are actually brains in a...92%What Putnam's argument actually establishes is that a brain in a vat's...92%Putnam's argument is intended to prove that he is not a brain-in-a-vat90%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: skepticism-content-externalism
    View source passageHide passage
    The important fact for Putnam’s argument is that whichever of these possible meanings is had in vat-English by ‘I am a brain in a vat’, that sentence, as used by a BIV, will be false. We saw that in sense (i), ‘I am a brain in a vat’ would be false in vat-English, since a BIV would never have (perceptual) experiences as of being a BIV. Putnam does not explain why ‘I am a brain in a vat’ would be false in both senses (ii) and (iii). Brueckner (2016: 4) suggests that since in sense (iii) both ‘bra
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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