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 Reference alone does not explain the contribution that expressions make to the determination of the truth-value of all sentences in which they occur.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sentences (7) and (8) contain expressions with the same reference but can differ in truth-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reference fully determined the truth-value contribution of expressions, co-referential expressions would be intersubstitutable in all sentences without change in truth-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's puzzle demonstrates that 'Hesperus is Hesperus' and 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' differ in cognitive significance despite identical referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitive significance constitutes a dimension of semantic contribution irreducible to reference, as competent speakers can know one truth without knowing the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A complete theory of how expressions contribute to truth-conditions must account for cognitive significance, which reference alone systematically fails to capture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositional attitude contexts like 'believes that' create intensional environments where truth-value is sensitive to the mode of presentation of a referent, not merely the referent itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's Pierre puzzle shows that a single individual can rationally hold contradictory beliefs about one object under different names, proving semantic content exceeds bare reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, expressions contribute structured senses or modes of presentation—not just referents—to determine truth-values in the full range of natural language sentences.
      ?

      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.