Talk:Supervaluationism

Quality

This article needs re-writing from scratch. Supervaluationism is generally a solution to the Sorites Paradox, and an account of vague predicates, not of predicates which fail to refer. I will try to re-write it when I get some free time. Alboran (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No free time for over a decade... take a break now and then, okay?!

(just kiddin' with you, just kiddin'! :P)

Himaldrmann (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is still true. This is a terrible article as it stands. It would be better for it not to exist than to exist in this form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.173.126 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

---

If its of any assistance: the article in its current form actually made me more confused regarding supervaluationism than I already was. As I do not understand it, I am not in a position to rewrite it. =/ .... Random Guy, July 23 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.3.128.198 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

---

This is still a terrible article. Its principal citation goes to answer.com, and yet states it as "Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy". Replacing this nonsense with a stub would be a better idea than leaving this drivel. --188.22.26.46 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Borderline" statement

Can someone enlighten me how the statement "Pegasus likes liquorice" is a 'borderline' statement as claimed in the lead section? It's certainly a case of non-referring term but nowhere do I see a vague predicate (or any predicate for that matter). BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is complete shit

It should be re-written, hopefully by someone with half a brain. For more information on supervaluationism, refer to: http://www.niu.edu/~gpynn/504_9.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.104.239 (talk • contribs)

Rationale for precisification redlink

I redlinked precisification in this article. Here's my rationale. Clearly, its surface definition is simply "making more precise", but I think there's clearly more meaning to it as a philosophical/logical term: see [1], [2] and [3]. I don't know enough about these topics to start writing an article on them, but the term is certainly article-worthy. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to contradict itself

That is, it gives the same example as "undefined" and as "supertrue"; unclear if the latter being nonsensical (i.e., any statement about Pegasus being apparently true) is meant to be given as motivation for the concept, or if the former was supposed to be motivation for the concept (i.e., to close a gap that can be created if only using "regular true"), or if someone was just confused (or if I'm confused).

I see this article has been criticized since 2009, though, so... hmm. Himaldrmann (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)