Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

When a second speaker says 'The murderer might not have b... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Challenges→Propositions expressed by epistemic modal sentences can vary in truth-value depending on the context of assessment, not just the context of utterance.

When a second speaker says 'The murderer might not have been on campus,' they express a numerically distinct proposition relative to their own epistemic state, not a reassessment of the first proposition.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Propositions are individuated partly by the epistemic context of utterance, not just truth-conditions or content.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Speaker 2's different evidence base creates a distinct propositional object, even if the sentence is identical.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Treating them as the same proposition conflates the semantic content with variations in justified belief states.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.Both speakers express the same possibility: that the murderer wasn't on campus. Epistemic states don't create new propositions.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If propositions varied with each speaker's knowledge, the same sentence would express infinitely many propositions across contexts.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Speaker 2 can rationally evaluate the first speaker's claim against their own evidence—presupposing they discuss one proposition.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

epistemic state(used interchangeably with 'cognitive state' in the passage): A cognitive state; the way things are represented or appear from the standpoint of a knowing subject
numerically distinct(Used to characterize the parts of the Form that must exist separately in each participant): Being distinct in the sense of being different individual tokens, not merely different in kind or quality.
proposition(Used in the context of a semantic theory sensitive to differences in subject matter.): The content expressed by a sentence, individuated at least in part by the subject matter of the sentence and the contents of its subsentential expressions.
reassessment(in philosophy of language): Looking at something again and changing your evaluation or judgment about it based on new thinking.

Connections

2 topics

Modality & Possibility1 linked Philosophy of Language1 linked

Related

Both speakers express the same possibility: that the murderer wasn't on campus. ...If propositions varied with each speaker's knowledge, the same sentence would ex...Propositions are individuated partly by the epistemic context of utterance, not ...Propositions expressed by epistemic modal sentences can vary in truth-value depe...

+3 moreShow less

Speaker 2 can rationally evaluate the first speaker's claim against their own ev...Speaker 2's different evidence base creates a distinct propositional object, eve...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit

Treating them as the same proposition conflates the semantic content with variat...