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 The burden of proof lies with those who sever syntax from ontology, since our best formal semantics (Tarski, Davidson) treats predication as mapping to genuine extensions.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Tarski-Davidson semantics requires problematic assumptions about transparent access to 'genuine extensions' that may not exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-referential semantics (proof-theoretic, pragmatic) successfully model language without positing ontological commitments to extensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Shifting the burden to skeptics inverts proper epistemology: claiming entities exist requires positive evidence, not demanding proof they don't.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Tarski and Davidson's formal semantics successfully explain truth conditions by mapping predicates to objective extensions in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If syntax could float free from ontology, we'd lose principled grounds for distinguishing true from false statements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden of proof principle favors defending established, working frameworks over radical alternatives lacking clear empirical advantage.
      ?

      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.