Skip to main content
Log in

Supervaluationism and Logical Consequence: A Third Way

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is often assumed that the supervaluationist theory of vagueness is committed to a global notion of logical consequence, in contrast with the local notion characteristic of modal logics. There are, at least, two problems related to the global notion of consequence. First, it brings some counterexamples to classically valid patterns of inference. Second, it is subject to an objection related to higher-order vagueness. This paper explores a third notion of logical consequence, and discusses its adequacy for the supervaluationist theory. The paper proceeds in two steps. In the first step, the paper provides a deductive notion of consequence for global validity using the tableaux method. In the second step, the paper provides a notion of logical consequence which is an alternative to global validity, and discusses i) whether it is acceptable to the supervaluationist and ii) whether it plays a better role in a theory of vagueness in the face of the problems related to the global notion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fara D.G., ‘Gap principles, penumbral consequence, and infinitely higher-order vagueness’, Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox, (2003), 195–221. Originally published under the name ‘Delia Graff’.

  2. Fine K.: ‘Vagueness, truth and logic’. Synthese 30, 265–300 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heck R.: ‘A note on the logic of (higher-order) vagueness’. Analysis 53, 201–208 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hyde, D., ‘The prospects of a paraconsistent approach to vagueness’, Unpublished manuscript, (2005).

  5. Keefe R.: ‘Supervaluationism and validity’. Philosophical Topics 28, 93–106 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Keefe, R., Theories of Vagueness, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

  7. Kremer P., Kremer M.: ‘Some supervaluation-based consequence relations’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32, 225–244 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McGee V., McLaughlin B.: ‘Review of Vagueness’. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 221–235 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Priest, G., An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, Cambridge Univerisity Press, 2001.

  10. Smullyan, R., First Order Logic, Dover, 1995.

  11. Williamson, T., Vagueness, Routledge, 1994.

  12. Williamson T.: ‘On the structure of higher-order vagueness’. Mind 108, 127–143 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Williamson, T., ‘Reply to McGee and McLaughlin’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27 (2004).

  14. Wright C.: ‘Further reflections on the sorites paradox’. Philosophical Topics 15, 227–290 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wright C.: ‘Is higher-order vagueness coherent?’. Analysis 52, 129–139 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Cobreros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cobreros, P. Supervaluationism and Logical Consequence: A Third Way. Stud Logica 90, 291–312 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9154-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9154-1

Keywords

Navigation