Switch to: References

Citations of:

Scope confusions and unsatisfiable disjuncts: Two problems for supervaluationism

In Richard Dietz & Sebastiano Moruzzi (eds.), (2010) ‘Scope Confusions and Unsatisfiable Disjuncts: Two Problems for Supervaluation- ism’, in eds., Cuts and Clouds: Vaguenesss, Its Nature, and Its Logic,. Oxford University Press (2010)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Ockhamism and Philosophy of Time.Alessio Santelli (ed.) - 2022 - Springer Cham.
    This book discusses fundamental topics on contemporary Ockhamism. The collected essays show how contemporary Ockhamism can impact areas of research such as semantics, metaphysics and also the philosophy of science. In addition, the volume hosts one historian of Medieval philosophy who investigates the way in which William of Ockham “in flesh and bone” construed time and, more generally, future contingency. The essays explore the different meanings of this theory. They cover three main topics, in particular. The first examines the thesis (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Fara’s Formula and the Supervaluational Thin Red Line.Alex Malpass - 2013 - Theoria 28 (2):267-282.
    This paper establishes two facts. The first is that a recently presented problem for supervaluationism applies equally to the branching-time cousin of the theory. The second fact is that a new version of branching-time supervaluationism avoids this and related problems.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The open future: bivalence, determinism and ontology.Elizabeth Barnes & Ross Cameron - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (2):291-309.
    In this paper we aim to disentangle the thesis that the future is open from theses that often get associated or even conflated with it. In particular, we argue that the open future thesis is compatible with both the unrestricted principle of bivalence and determinism with respect to the laws of nature. We also argue that whether or not the future (and indeed the past) is open has no consequences as to the existence of (past and) future ontology.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   91 citations  
  • (1 other version)Fara’s Formula and the Supervaluational Thin Red Line.Alex Malpass - 2013 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 28 (2):267-282.
    Este artículo se centra en un argumento presentado por Fara (2010) en contra del supervaluacionismo en el contexto de la vaguedad. Muestro cómo dicho argumento es igualmente aplicable al supervaluacionismo de tiempo ramificado (presentado por primera vez por Thomason 1970), pero no a la semántica 'STRL' de Malpass y Wawer (2012), que está estrechamente relacionada.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Book Reviews: Richard Dietz and Sebastiano Moruzzi (eds.), Cuts and Clouds: Vagueness, its Nature, and its Logic.Doroteya Angelova - 2012 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 21 (1):97-104.
    Richard Dietz and Sebastiano Moruzzi (eds.), Cuts and Clouds: Vagueness, its Nature, and its Logic, Oxford University Press, 2010, 586 pp., ISBN 9780199570386.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Ser de Uma Maneira sem Ser Claramente dessa Maneira: um Problema para o Supervalorativismo.Ricardo Santos - 2012 - Disputatio 4 (34):823-849.
    Title in English: "Being a certain way without being definitely that way: a problem for supervaluationism". I argue that the supervaluationist theory of vagueness, in its most common version, is committed to a thesis – viz., the incompatibility between being-F and not-being-definitely-F – which is doubtful, unjustified and in conflict with the definition of super-truth as truth in all admissible precisifications of a vague language.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Vagueness as Arbitrariness: Outline of a Theory of Vagueness.Sagid Salles - 2021 - Springer.
    This book proposes a new solution to the problem of vagueness. There are several different ways of addressing this problem and no clear agreement on which one is correct. The author proposes that it should be understood as the problem of explaining vague predicates in a way that systematizes six intuitions about the phenomenon and satisfies three criteria of adequacy for an ideal theory of vagueness. The third criterion, which is called the “criterion of precisification”, is the most controversial one. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations