Abstract

Many theorists think nowadays that vagueness is a widespread phenomenon that affects and infects almost all terms and concepts of our thought and language, and for some philosophers degree of truth theories are the best way to cope with vagueness and sorites susceptible concepts. In this paper I argue that many of the allegedly vague concepts are not vague in the last analysis the philosopher or scientist could offer if compelled to, and that much of the vagueness of the properly vague ones comes from its contextual dependence alone. I also argue that degree of truth approaches -- particularly the infinitist ones -- and fuzzy logics do not solve practically any of the puzzles brought about by vagueness and sorites arguments, and conversely they have many additional problems of their own. Concerning recalcitrant cases of vagueness, I would tentatively commend the epistemic theory of vagueness, from an inference to the best explanation