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 Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory locates successful communication in cognitive effects achieved, not in the full mutual recognition of every layer of speaker intention.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive effects alone cannot distinguish manipulation from genuine communication; both can produce effects without authentic mutual understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relevance theory conflates communicative success with mere influence; a hearer might adopt a belief through deceit while communication failed morally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some utterances succeed communicatively precisely because speaker and hearer recognize each other's intentions; effects without this are accidental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Communication often succeeds despite hearers misunderstanding speaker's deeper motives, suggesting intention-recognition isn't necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitive effects (belief formation, action) are publicly observable and testable; full intention recognition is private and epistemically opaque.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring mutual recognition of all intentional layers makes communication impossibly demanding in real-world contexts with time constraints.
      ?

      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.