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 Regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient to ground an analysis of meaning.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There exist cases where a regularity between utterances of a sentence and agents' believing a proposition holds, yet the sentence does not express that proposition in the relevant group.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sufficient analysis of meaning must account for all cases where meaning is present and absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meaning shows that meaning requires communicative intention, not mere regularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A thermometer reliably indicates temperature without meaning anything, demonstrating that reliable correlation is insufficient for semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intentional states must be present for an utterance to bear meaning, and regularities can obtain without any underlying intentional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rule-following paradox establishes that no pattern of use, however regular, uniquely determines a rule that fixes meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If regularities underdetermine which rule is followed, they underdetermine meaning itself, making them insufficient as a grounding analysis.
      ?

      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.