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 Supervaluationism collapses under the 'higher-order vagueness' problem: the meta-language used to define 'precisifications' is itself vague.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Meta-language vagueness doesn't collapse supervaluationism if we accept that higher-order vagueness is a general feature of language, not a special problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supervaluationism only requires that *some* precisifications exist and are consistent, not that they be perfectly sharply defined at all orders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objection conflates vagueness in how we *describe* precisifications with vagueness in the precisifications *themselves*, which are mathematical constructs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If precisifications are defined vaguely, they fail to provide determinate truth-conditions, undermining supervaluationism's core solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Higher-order vagueness is unavoidable: any attempt to sharpen 'precisification' via meta-language generates new vagueness at that level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Supervaluationism claims vagueness is metalinguistic, not metaphysical, but vagueness in the meta-language contradicts this distinction.
      ?

      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.