more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 21607

[filed under theme 7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 10. Vagueness / f. Supervaluation for vagueness ]

Full Idea

The supervaluationist denies bivalence but accepts excluded middle. The statement 'A or not-A' is true on each admissible interpretation, and therefore true, even if 'A' (and hence 'not-A') are true and some and false on others, so neither T nor F.

Gist of Idea

Supervaluation has excluded middle but not bivalence; 'A or not-A' is true, even when A is undecided

Source

Timothy Williamson (Vagueness [1994], 5.2)

Book Ref

Williamson,Timothy: 'Vagueness' [Routledge 1996], p.145


A Reaction

See Ideas 21605 and 21606 for the distinction being used here. Denying bivalence allows 'A' to be neither true nor false. It seems common sense that 'he is either bald or not-bald' is true, without being sure about the disjuncts.

Related Ideas

Idea 21605 Excluded Middle is 'A or not A' in the object language [Williamson]

Idea 21606 'Bivalence' is the meta-linguistic principle that 'A' in the object language is true or false [Williamson]

Idea 21604 Supervaluation assigns truth when all the facts are respected [Williamson]

Idea 21676 Epicureans say disjunctions can be true whiile the disjuncts are not true [Epicurus, by Cicero]


The 30 ideas with the same theme [narrowing down the vagueness]:

Supervaluation can give no answer to 'who is the last bald man' [Fine,K]
A vague sentence is only true for all ways of making it completely precise [Fine,K]
Logical connectives cease to be truth-functional if vagueness is treated with three values [Fine,K]
Meaning is both actual (determining instances) and potential (possibility of greater precision) [Fine,K]
With the super-truth approach, the classical connectives continue to work [Fine,K]
Borderline cases must be under our control, as capable of greater precision [Fine,K]
Supervaluationism keeps true-or-false where precision can be produced, but not otherwise [Keefe/Smith]
Vague statements lack truth value if attempts to make them precise fail [Keefe/Smith]
Some of the principles of classical logic still fail with supervaluationism [Keefe/Smith]
The semantics of supervaluation (e.g. disjunction and quantification) is not classical [Keefe/Smith]
Supervaluation misunderstands vagueness, treating it as a failure to make things precise [Keefe/Smith]
Supervaluation keeps classical logic, but changes the truth in classical semantics [Williamson]
You can't give a precise description of a language which is intrinsically vague [Williamson]
Supervaluation assigns truth when all the facts are respected [Williamson]
Supervaluation has excluded middle but not bivalence; 'A or not-A' is true, even when A is undecided [Williamson]
Truth-functionality for compound statements fails in supervaluation [Williamson]
Supervaluationism defines 'supertruth', but neglects it when defining 'valid' [Williamson]
Supervaluation adds a 'definitely' operator to classical logic [Williamson]
Supervaluationism cannot eliminate higher-order vagueness [Williamson]
Supervaluation refers to one vaguely specified thing, through satisfaction by everything in some range [Hawley]
Supervaluationism takes what the truth-value would have been if indecision was resolved [Hawley]
A 'precisification' of a trivalent interpretation reduces it to a bivalent interpretation [Sider]
A 'supervaluation' assigns further Ts and Fs, if they have been assigned in every precisification [Sider]
Supervaluational logic is classical, except when it adds the 'Definitely' operator [Sider]
We can 'sharpen' vague terms, and then define truth as true-on-all-sharpenings [Sider]
A 'supervaluation' gives a proposition consistent truth-value for classical assignments [Read]
Identities and the Indiscernibility of Identicals don't work with supervaluations [Read]
Supervaluations say there is a cut-off somewhere, but at no particular place [Read]
In the supervaluationist account, disjunctions are not determined by their disjuncts [Horsten]
If 'Italy is large' lacks truth, so must 'Italy is not large'; but classical logic says it's large or it isn't [Horsten]