The claim that premise (1) is entailed a priori by EXT re... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

The claim that premise (1) is entailed a priori by EXT requires the contentious further premise that some causal theory of content is entirely a priori

Philosophy of Language Truth & Knowledge

?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.If an incompatibilist wants (1) to be entailed a priori by EXT, a causal theory of content must itself be knowable a priori
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Whether any causal theory of content is entirely a priori is contentious
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Conceptual role semantics allows a priori derivation of wide content via inferential norms without committing to any causal theory.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.The supporting argument illicitly assumes that all versions of EXT ground content in causal relations, ignoring rationalist-compatible alternatives.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.If even one non-causal formulation of EXT entails (1) a priori, the claim that a causal theory is required is falsified.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

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.