Cited by 107Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPhilosophy and Theoretical SciencePhenomenology and Existential Philosophy

Against Vague Existence

Sider, Theodore·2003·Philosophical Studies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1024465319036

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ted Sider (2003) has supplied arguments that existence cannot be vague.

    “First, we would simply like to point out that Ted Sider (2003) has supplied arguments that existence cannot be vague.”

    From What Becomes of a Causal Set? (2017) · cites this paper as Sider (2003)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sider, T.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Sider, Theodore
Venue
Philosophical Studies
Published
2003-05
Volume
114
Issue
1-2
Pages
135-146
ISSN
  • 0031-8116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0883
OpenAlex
W161882535
Cited by
107
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
32.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Philosophical Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Keywords
vagueness, existence, metaphysics of vagueness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review