Proponents of supervaluationism claim super-truth, i. e., truth on every admissible precisification, is identical to truth or, at least, is a suitable truth proxy. I object that super-truth is neither identical to nor a suitable proxy for truth. I argue that to claim a statement is super-true is simply to maintain that a certain counterfactual holds, and that a claim is true, counterfactually, is no reason to treat it as true. I further argue that, with super-truth undermined, Roy Sorensen’s objection that supervaluationism cannot accommodate vague directly referential terms presents supervaluationism’s defenders with a significant challenge.
Fine, K. 1997. “Vagueness, Truth and Logic.” In Vagueness: A Reader, edited by R. Keefe and P. Smith. Cambridge, 119–50. MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fodor, J., and E. Lepore. 1996. “What Cannot Be Evaluated Cannot Be Evaluated and It Cannot Be Supervalued Either.” Journal of Philosophy 93:516–35.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter