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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Supervaluationism is a respected theory of vagueness because indecision about meaning can be both intentional and functional.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supervaluationism collapses under the 'higher-order vagueness' problem: the meta-language used to define 'precisifications' is itself vague.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the boundary between admissible and inadmissible precisifications is vague, supervaluationism generates the very indeterminacy it purports to resolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williamson (1994) demonstrated that this regress cannot be halted without positing sharp boundaries the theory was designed to avoid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supervaluationism violates classical inference rules: under supervaluational semantics, 'A or not-A' can be supertrue while neither 'A' nor 'not-A' is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fine (1975) acknowledged this failure of truth-functionality means standard natural deduction, including argument-by-cases, becomes invalid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A semantic theory that abandons core logical inference rules sacrifices too much explanatory machinery to count as functionally superior to its rivals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Expressivists can explain how supervaluationism developed into the most respected theory of vagueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supervaluationists hold that speakers fill in meanings as they go along in light of new information and interests, rather than committing prematurely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This intentional indecision is a functional feature of language use, not a defect.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42