Talk:Supposition theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.


Bmorton3 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Paul Spade's Webpage has a great graphic for the "Supposition Dragon" that would be appropriate for this page, if it counts as "free enough" for Wikipedia use. I'd put in on, but I've just started editing Wikipedia, and haven't sorted out uploading images, and the image page stuff yet. Here's Spade's discussion of the copyright situation for the supposition dragon image

Supposition proper[edit]


This section is fairly clear, but could be clearer, thus making for easier reading. For example, the various types of supposition could be given an emphasis using bold formatting, or set out under separate bullet points. The whole discussion is discursive, which makes greater demands on the reader.

Personal supposition[edit]

The discussion doesn't make clear how, if at all, personal supposition differs from simple signification.

Paul Spade's web page[edit]

The page mentioned, with the "supposition dragon" drawing and a script in Javascript that explains the various branches, can be found at: [1]. However, according to Spade, the diagram is wrong, and the relations it implies between the various branches of suppositio are seriously flawed. There would be no point in confusing the reader with somebody else's misconceptions of the subject.

Better would be a logical tree of the various subdivisions, set out using bullet points as mentioned above.

Differences between scholars[edit]

As indicated by Paul Spade on his website (inactive since 2007, but still mostly available today), not all mediaeval logicians agreed on the divisions of suppositio. Yet the discussion makes no mention of this.


There are no inline citations for any of the statements in this section.

yoyo (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)