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 Relativism about epistemic modals holds that propositions can differ in truth-value relative to contexts of assessment in addition to worlds and possibly times.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Contextualist accounts (DeRose, Stanley) explain epistemic modal variation by indexing 'might' to the relevant knowledge state of the utterer's context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contextualism fully captures eavesdropping intuitions by shifting the contextually salient epistemic standard, positing contexts of assessment is ontologically superfluous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.MacFarlane's relativism violates the norm that truth-bearers have stable truth conditions, undermining compositionality in semantic theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Expressivists (Gibbard, Yalcin) argue that epistemic modals do not express propositions with truth conditions but rather update information states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'might p' is not proposition-expressing, the relativist framework of assessment-relative truth values lacks a proper truth-apt object to be relativized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Yalcin's informational semantics explains the logical behavior of epistemic modals—including embedding under 'suppose'—without invoking assessment-relative truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The appearance of propositions varying in truth-value depending on context is taken by the relativist to reflect reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contexts of assessment are the contexts in which a proposition is being considered, distinct from contexts of utterance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eavesdropping cases—where one party overhears an utterance made without access to the hearer's evidence—generate the same intuitions without requiring different times of assessment.
      ?

      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.