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 identity theory of truth faces an objection based on the non-congruence of canonical names of propositions and facts.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Canonical names of propositions and of facts are often not intersubstitutable salva congruitate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even when such names are intersubstitutable, they may not be intersubstitutable salva veritate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We say propositions are true but not that they obtain, whereas we say facts obtain but not that they are true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's context principle shows that grammatical category differences between 'fact' and 'proposition' expressions reflect surface syntax, not ontological distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'the fact that snow is white' and 'the proposition that snow is white' were truly identical, substitution failures would be impossible—yet they systematically occur across modal and epistemic contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Systematic non-intersubstitutability salva congruitate is a reliable indicator of categorial difference, as Davidson's work on logical form demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vendler's linguistic analysis in 'Res Cogitans' establishes that nominalization patterns for facts and propositions diverge systematically across natural languages, not merely in English.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the identity theory were correct, the predicate 'is true' and 'obtains' would be co-extensive across all linguistic frames, but their divergent grammatical behavior in embedded contexts falsifies this expectation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Horwich's minimalism about truth preserves the T-schema while conceding that 'obtains' and 'is true' occupy distinct grammatical roles, undermining the identity theorist's semantic unification.
      ?

      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.