ABSTRACT According to the principle of grounding Internality, if X fully grounds Y , then necessarily, if X and Y obtain, then X fully grounds Y . Though intuitively appealing and widely assumed, the principle is under attack from various concerns. The common arguments against Internality are usually accommodatable by the Completer Strategy. A more recent and improved variety of arguments, involving trumping grounding, squarely escape the Completer Strategy. We will first critically examine cases of trumping grounding and argue that they do not really give rise to serious troubles for Internality. Then, appealing to the distinction between token facts and type facts, we present a novel argument against Internality by invoking a hitherto unexplored grounding relation holding between ordinary facts like Billy killed Suzy and what we will call @‐facts like Billy actually killed Suzy. Substantial defenses for our new case will be provided.
Chaoan He (Tue,) studied this question.