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
    Supervaluationism denies the induction step by making 'th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Rejecting the induction step of the sorites paradox does not dissolve the paradox but merely transforms it into a different problem.

    Supervaluationism denies the induction step by making 'there exists a last child' neither true nor false, yet still cannot assign a determinate boundary under any admissible precisification.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Key Terms

    Admissible(as used in formal logic)
    Allowed or acceptable according to the rules of the system being discussed.
    determinate boundary(as used in metaphysics)
    A clear, exact dividing line or edge where something definitely begins or ends.
    induction step(Sorites paradox formulation)
    The second premise of the sorites paradox: the conditional claim that if an n-day-old human being is a child, then an (n+1)-day-old human being is also a child.
    precisification(supervaluationism)
    A way of extending the meaning of a vague term so that it becomes precise.
    supervaluationism(Presented as a counter to the Fregean defect view of vagueness)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    A theory of vagueness on which semantic indecision is intentional and functional: speakers fill in the meanings of terms incrementally in light of new information and interests rather than fixing full definitions prematurely.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Rejecting the induction step of the sorites paradox does not dissolve the parado...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective