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)

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, and. 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)