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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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