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
    The 'common-sensical' notion of reference Feigl invokes p... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→We must distinguish between the radical empiricist's meaning of 'meaning' (epistemic reduction) and a more common-sensical meaning of 'meaning' (factual reference).

    The 'common-sensical' notion of reference Feigl invokes presupposes a framework-relative ontology, collapsing the distinction he draws.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All reference requires background assumptions about what exists and how language maps onto reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Feigl's distinction between 'common sense' and 'scientific' reference presupposes one framework as neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If reference is framework-relative, no framework can claim privileged access to 'direct' reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Framework-relativity and distinction-drawing are compatible; both can hold within a coherent position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Common-sense reference (e.g., 'the table') and scientific reference (e.g., 'H₂O') may differ in *precision* without losing their distinct epistemic status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Collapse of distinctions requires showing frameworks cannot be compared or evaluated; Feigl need not claim this.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    All reference requires background assumptions about what exists and how language...Collapse of distinctions requires showing frameworks cannot be compared or evalu...Common-sense reference (e.g., 'the table') and scientific reference (e.g., 'H₂O'...Feigl's distinction between 'common sense' and 'scientific' reference presuppose...
    +3 moreShow less
    Framework-relativity and distinction-drawing are compatible; both can hold withi...If reference is framework-relative, no framework can claim privileged access to ...We must distinguish between the radical empiricist's meaning of 'meaning' (epist...

    Details

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