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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Burge's social externalism derives content from normative communal practice, not causal history, and is stipulatively a priori in character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If externalism can be formulated without a causal theory of content, premise (1) can be a priori entailed by EXT without invoking causal semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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