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 necessary a posteriori status of identity statements like 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is fully explicable by distinguishing epistemic from metaphysical necessity, leaving no explanatory role for Fregean senses.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Fregean senses explain how co-referential names can differ in cognitive significance; the epistemic/metaphysical distinction alone cannot.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If senses are unnecessary, the rationality of withholding judgment on 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' becomes a purely psychological fact, not semantic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction fails to explain why identity differs from other necessary a posteriori truths like 'water is H2O' in terms of informativeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Metaphysical necessity concerns what's true in all possible worlds; epistemic necessity concerns justification. These are logically distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Identity statements are metaphysically necessary (if x=y, then necessarily x=y), yet epistemically contingent (empirical discovery required).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction fully explains why we can rationally deny 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' before learning it, without contradiction or sense-identity.
      ?

      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.