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 propositional variables 'p' and 'q' have sentential status and can legitimately fill argument-slots of truth-functions

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositional variables in truth-functional contexts are schematic placeholders, not genuine singular terms denoting truth-bearers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's distinction between concept-script variables and object-denoting names shows that sentential position does not confer propositional content on a variable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A variable that 'contains a verb' in its substitution instances does not itself possess verbal or sentential status any more than 'x' becomes a number by ranging over numbers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine argued in 'Philosophy of Logic' that quantifying into sentential position requires propositional entities as values, but no such entities can be individuated without paradox.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'p' and 'q' have genuine sentential status sufficient to fill argument-slots, substitutional quantification must be available, yet substitutional quantification collapses truth-functional logic into mere syntactic manipulation without genuine semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The variables 'p' and 'q' stand for items that already contain a verb
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The variables 'p' and 'q' express a truth-bearer
      ?

      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.