Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The meaning of 'vehicle' can be fixed by social conventions and community practices without invoking irreducibly normative facts.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Social conventions themselves presuppose normative facts about what speakers *ought* to mean or how they *should* coordinate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Drawing boundaries between vehicles and non-vehicles (e.g., skateboards vs. cars) requires implicit normative judgments about function and purpose.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Explaining *why* communities converge on certain meanings rather than others requires appeal to normative facts about salience and correctness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Social conventions successfully fix meanings for countless terms (money, property, marriage) without explicit normative grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Community practices create de facto standards that constrain usage; 'vehicle' succeeds when communities converge on similar applications.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Invoking normative facts adds explanatory burdens without additional predictive power for how communities actually use language.
?
How convincing is this?
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.