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
    Relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson) predicts that conne... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The cancellation of temporal ordering in 'I got drunk and I drove home (but not in that order)' does not prove 'and' is unambiguous.

    Relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson) predicts that connectives encode procedural meaning that constrains inferential processes without encoding propositional content.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Connectives like 'but' and 'therefore' systematically guide interpretation without adding truth-conditional content to utterances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Procedural meaning explains why connectives are untranslatable across languages despite similar logical functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cognitive load studies show connectives reduce inferential effort by constraining, not specifying, possible interpretations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Connectives like 'or' and 'and' demonstrably contribute to truth conditions: 'A and B' differs semantically from 'A or B'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The procedural/conceptual distinction cannot cleanly separate what connectives do—they both constrain inference AND encode meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many connectives have clear paraphrases with propositional content ('because' ≈ 'due to the fact that'), undermining the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Cognitive load studies show connectives reduce inferential effort by constrainin...Connectives like 'but' and 'therefore' systematically guide interpretation witho...Connectives like 'or' and 'and' demonstrably contribute to truth conditions: 'A ...Many connectives have clear paraphrases with propositional content ('because' ≈ ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Procedural meaning explains why connectives are untranslatable across languages ...The cancellation of temporal ordering in 'I got drunk and I drove home (but not ...The procedural/conceptual distinction cannot cleanly separate what connectives d...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit