Supervaluationism is one of the most discussed approaches to the semantics of future tense sentences in a branching time. In this paper, we consider the criticism advanced by Malpass against Supervaluationism. This criticism relies on the fact that supervaluationists must accept as supertrue disjunctions whose disjuncts are not only supertrue-which supervaluationists are ready to acknowledge-but also not satisfiable. In order to show this, Malpass proposes a formula, FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$, which shows the existence of a satisfiable disjunction with unsatisfiable disjuncts in supervaluationist models. In reply, we show that formula FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$ cannot be expressed within a model (whether Ockhamist or supervaluationist) because it quantifies on models. It can be correctly characterised only within a meta-model that has the resources to quantify on various models. However, once that is done, FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$ is, for the advocates of Supervaluationism, no more demanding than other disjunctions because it just generalises at the meta-theoretical level what supervaluationists already acknowledge at the theoretical level.

De Florio, C., Frigerio, A., A critique of Malpass's argument against Supervaluationism, <<THEORIA>>, 2022; (N/A): 1-11. [doi:10.1111/theo.12441] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/220360]

A critique of Malpass's argument against Supervaluationism

De Florio, C
Co-primo
;
Frigerio, A
Co-primo
2022

Abstract

Supervaluationism is one of the most discussed approaches to the semantics of future tense sentences in a branching time. In this paper, we consider the criticism advanced by Malpass against Supervaluationism. This criticism relies on the fact that supervaluationists must accept as supertrue disjunctions whose disjuncts are not only supertrue-which supervaluationists are ready to acknowledge-but also not satisfiable. In order to show this, Malpass proposes a formula, FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$, which shows the existence of a satisfiable disjunction with unsatisfiable disjuncts in supervaluationist models. In reply, we show that formula FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$ cannot be expressed within a model (whether Ockhamist or supervaluationist) because it quantifies on models. It can be correctly characterised only within a meta-model that has the resources to quantify on various models. However, once that is done, FF1$$ F{F}_1 $$ is, for the advocates of Supervaluationism, no more demanding than other disjunctions because it just generalises at the meta-theoretical level what supervaluationists already acknowledge at the theoretical level.
Inglese
De Florio, C., Frigerio, A., A critique of Malpass's argument against Supervaluationism, <<THEORIA>>, 2022; (N/A): 1-11. [doi:10.1111/theo.12441] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/220360]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
De Florio, Frigerio - A critique of Malpass s argument against Supervaluationism.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 183.88 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
183.88 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/220360
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact