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 semantic content of a sentence must lack temporal qualification, meaning it can change in truth-value over time.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositions can be temporally individuated such that 'Reagan is president' expresses distinct propositions at distinct times, each with permanent truth-values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Temporally qualified propositions remain compositionally tractable if operators shift the time of evaluation rather than re-indexing the propositional content itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kaplan's distinction between character and content shows that operators can target contextual parameters without requiring content to be evaluation-time-neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prior's tense logic treats temporal operators as primitive and propositions as having intrinsic tensed structure, making evaluation-relative content unnecessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sentences express tensed propositions with built-in temporal orientation, 'in the past, Reagan was president' is true because the embedded proposition is itself past-directed, not because an atemporal content is checked at multiple times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A sentence contributes the same content regardless of whether it occurs as a proper part of a larger sentence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sentence such as 'in the past, Reagan was president' is true depending on whether the content of 'Reagan is president' is true at some past time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the content of 'Reagan is president' were temporally qualified, it could not be evaluated at an arbitrary past time by a temporal sentential operator.
      ?

      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.