Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Quine's thesis of the indeterminacy of translation entails that no unique logical representation of a natural language sentence is ever fully determinate.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Indeterminacy of *translation* between languages doesn't entail indeterminacy within a single language's internal logical structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Multiple logically equivalent formulations can represent the same truth-conditions; equivalence doesn't mean representation is indeterminate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Speakers demonstrably have determinate competence with logical operators; this constrains representation even if some underdetermination exists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Translation underdetermination shows multiple logically distinct formulas can preserve all behavioral/observational equivalences in translation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If translation is indeterminate, the source language itself lacks determinate logical structure independent of translation schemes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural language semantics depend partly on holistic theory-choice, not isolated sentence meanings, undermining unique logical representation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.