Talk:Supposition theory

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic / Language / Medieval Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of language Medieval philosophy Linguistics: Philosophy of language 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

On 23 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be Supposition. The result of the discussion was speedy not moved.

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 http://pvspade.com/Logic/index.html[reply]

Clarity

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

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

Paul Spade's web page

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

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.

Sources

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

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