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 'that'-clause in 'Sammy believes that snow is powdered sugar' refers to a real object even though snow is not powdered sugar

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.That-clauses in belief reports are syncategorematic expressions that contribute to sentential meaning without independently denoting objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's context principle shows grammatical noun-phrase status does not entail singular-term status in the logically relevant sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment applies to regimented first-order quantificational logic, not to surface grammatical form in natural language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The truth of 'Sammy believes that P' is fully explicable via adverbial or relational accounts that quantify only over agents and worlds, not proposition-objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schiffer's 'language-created' entities and Ryle's category-mistake arguments show apparent reference to propositions may reflect logical grammar confusion rather than genuine ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The sentence 'Sammy believes that snow is powdered sugar' could be true (e.g., if Sammy is seven years old and mistaken)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.By the criterion of ontological commitment, if a sentence is true, its singular terms refer to real objects
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.'That snow is powdered sugar' is a singular term (a 'that'-clause) in that sentence
      ?

      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.