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 inference from 'ought'-statements to meaning statements is questionable

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even if 'green' ought to be applied in a certain way, the 'ought' in question may not concern semantics
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'ought' might instead concern something else, such as religious practices
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Humean fact-value gaps apply within normative domains: an 'ought' governing use can be grounded in etiquette, logic, or semantics without distinguishing which.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allan Gibbard's norm-expressivism shows that 'ought'-statements express acceptance of norms from any domain, not specifically semantic norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a principled criterion distinguishing semantic 'oughts' from practical or social ones, inferring meaning from 'ought'-statements commits a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's Wittgenstein shows that any normative rule admits multiple interpretations, making the step from 'ought' to determinate meaning underdetermined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'ought' underdetermines which semantic rule is operative, then inferring a specific meaning from an 'ought'-statement requires an independent account of content.
      ?

      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.