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
    That-clauses must designate entities fitting the proposit... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    That-clauses must designate entities fitting the propositional role (i.e., propositions) in order to explain the validity and soundness of certain argument patterns

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Certain argument patterns involving that-clauses are valid and have sound instances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some sound argument instances contain premises attributing truth to the designata of that-clauses, so those designata must be bearers of truth-values
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some sound argument instances contain premises ascribing attitudes toward the designata of that-clauses, so those designata must be objects of attitudes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Syntactic that-clauses can function as incomplete logical forms that are semantically completed by context, never designating any entity (Ryle, Sellars).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Argument validity involving that-clauses can be explained by inferential role relations among sentences rather than by shared reference to proposition-entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing propositions as designated entities multiplies ontology beyond what is needed if sentential inference rules alone suffice to explain argument validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Schiffer's 'pleonastic' account shows that-clauses generate 'something-from-nothing' transformations, meaning their apparent designata are logical shadows of sentences, not robust entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If propositional singular terms are merely pleonastic transformations of sentences, argument validity is grounded in the underlying sentential equivalences, not in proposition-entity designation.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Argument validity involving that-clauses can be explained by inferential role re...Certain argument patterns involving that-clauses are valid and have sound instan...If propositional singular terms are merely pleonastic transformations of sentenc...Positing propositions as designated entities multiplies ontology beyond what is ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Schiffer's 'pleonastic' account shows that-clauses generate 'something-from-noth...Some sound argument instances contain premises ascribing attitudes toward the de...Some sound argument instances contain premises attributing truth to the designat...Syntactic that-clauses can function as incomplete logical forms that are semanti...The best explanation of why these argument patterns are valid and sound requires...

    Similar

    'That'-clauses must refer to propositions.84%'That'-clauses are best interpreted as purporting to refer to proposit...83%The best explanation of why these argument patterns are valid and soun...83%If propositions are the objects of belief, then sentences ascribing di...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions
    View source passageHide passage
    One standard sort of argument for propositions is metalinguistic. Thus, many argue that we think of that-clauses as designating expressions if we are to explain how certain argument patterns (such as those considered in Section 2) are valid and in fact have sound instances (Horwich 1990, Higginbotham 1991, Schiffer 1996, Bealer 1998). Since some of these sound argument instances contain as premises sentences attributing truth to the designata of that-clauses, those designata must be bearers of t
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit