Talk:Supposition theory
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
[edit ]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 ]
Supposition proper
[edit ]Clarity
[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.
Sources
[edit ]There are no inline citations for any of the statements in this section.
yoyo (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Requested move 23 March 2023
[edit ]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: speedy not moved. Started by a sockpuppet & no one supported any move. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
Supposition theory → Supposition – imperfect title move 203.17.215.26 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose move. Although supposition redirects here, the full name is more common, and no rationale was provided. O.N.R. (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- Oppose A move would result in WP:SURPRISE to readers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class logic articles
- Low-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Start-Class philosophy of language articles
- Low-importance philosophy of language articles
- Philosophy of language task force articles
- Start-Class Medieval philosophy articles
- Low-importance Medieval philosophy articles
- Medieval philosophy task force articles
- Start-Class Linguistics articles
- Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles