Excluded middle and bivalence

Erkenntnis 37 (1):93 - 97 (1992)
I consider two related objections to the claim that the law of excluded middle does not imply bivalence. One objection claims that the truth predicate captured by supervaluation semantics is not properly motivated. The second objection says that even if it is, LEM still implies bivalence. I show that LEM does not imply bivalence in a supervaluational language. I also argue that considering supertruth as truth can be reasonably motivated.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00220634
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,749
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Epistemic Truth and Excluded Middle.Cesare Cozzo - 1998 - Theoria 64 (2-3):243-282.
Excluded Middle, Bivalence and Fatalism.Stotrs McCall - 1966 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 9 (1-4):384-386.
Excluded Middle.Hugh S. Chandler - 1967 - Journal of Philosophy 64 (24):807-814.
Pragmatism and Bivalence.Cheryl Misak - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (2):171 – 179.
Truth, Falsity, and Borderline Cases.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Philosophical Topics 28 (1):211-244.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
60 ( #90,703 of 2,198,093 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #299,438 of 2,198,093 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature