Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Emma Wells defends semantic externalism. "Mental content depends partly on external environment," Wells argues. "Two thinkers with identical internal states on different planets—one with water (H2O), one with superficially identical liquid (XYZ)—have different thoughts when thinking 'water.'"
Text 2: Internalist Dr. David Park challenges external content. "Subjective experience and behavior are identical in both cases," Park contends. "If thought depends on external factors thinkers cannot distinguish, 'thought' isn't what we pre-theoretically took it to be."
What implications for our concept of thought does Park suggest externalism has?
That externalism supports common sense
That externalism revises our ordinary understanding of what thoughts are
That experience is never identical
That environments don't affect anything
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Park says if thought depends on inaccessible external factors, "'thought' isn't what we pre-theoretically took it to be." Externalism revises, not captures, our ordinary concept.
- Evidence: Park: externalism changes what thought means.
- Reasoning: Pre-theoretical intuition assumed internal determination.
- Conclusion: Externalism requires conceptual revision.
Choice A is incorrect because Park sees revision, not support. Choice C is incorrect because Park grants identical experience. Choice D is incorrect because Park argues about implications of environment mattering.