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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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