Talk:Truth-conditional semantics

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Language Start‑class 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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Start‑class

	Linguistics portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

[Untitled]

BAM! The refutation given by Scott Soames is probably the prettiest I've ever seen in philosophy. His article is kind of weak and apparently he got the idea from someone else, but the content = gorgeous. I'd condition his truth if you know what I mean.Heyitspeter (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major set of criticisms of the truth-conditional approach is found in the Chomskyan approach to natural language (internalist, nativist, syntactical). I feel like the article would benefit from inclusion of these criticisms as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.194.42 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to read some modern books on linguistics, not start Wikipedia articles based on stuff from the 1970s. I added a merge tag. See [1] for instance. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not explain the concept before criticizing it

I'm not an expert in this subject so I'd like to have the concept explained before it's being criticized, for that reason I started this discussion here and will be adding a Missing Information template on the page, thank you. MurasakiLizard (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]