, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 129–139 | Cite as

Superassertibility and the Equivalence Schema: A Dilemma for Wright’s Antirealist

  • Deborah C. SmithEmail author


Crispin Wright champions the notion of superassertibility as providing a truth predicate that is congenial to antirealists in many debates in that it satisfies relevant platitudes concerning truth and does so in a very minimal way. He motivates such a claim by arguing that superassertibility can satisfy the equivalence schema: it is superassertible that P if and only if P. I argue that Wright’s attempted proof that superassertibility can satisfy this schema is unsuccessful, because it requires a premise that has not been properly motivated and is prima facie implausible. I further argue that, even if the dubious premise is accepted, the resulting proof is intuitionistically invalid. This is problematic, because a proponent of superassertibility as a truth predicate has independent reasons to affect a logical revision in the direction of intuitionism. The resulting dilemma suggests that superassertibility may not be an adequate truth candidate for any significant ranges of discourse.


Antirealism Crispin Wright Equivalence Schema Intuitionistic logic Minimal truth Realism Superassertibility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andjelkovic M., Williamson T. (2000). Truth, falsity and borderline cases. Philosophical Topics, 28: 211–244Google Scholar
  2. Dummett M. (1978). Truth and other enigmas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Dummett M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Dummett M. (1993). The seas of language. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitch F. (1963). A logical analysis of some value concepts. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 28: 135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hart W.D., McGinn C. (1976). Knowledge and necessity. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5: 205–208Google Scholar
  7. Hart W.D. (1979). The epistemology of abstract objects: access and inferences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 53: 153–165Google Scholar
  8. Smith D.C. (2005). Warranted assertibility and the norms of assertoric practice: Why truth and warranted assertibility are not coincident norms. Ratio 18: 206–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Williamson T. (1982). Intuitionism disproved?. Analysis, 42(2): 203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Williamson T. (1992). On intuitionistic modal epistemic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21: 63–89Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of philosophyKent State UniversityKentUS

Personalised recommendations