Abstract
We argue that the epistemic theory of vagueness cannot adequately justify its key tenet-that vague predicates have precisely bounded extensions, of which we are necessarily ignorant. Nor can the theory adequately account for our ignorance of the truth values of borderline cases. Furthermore, we argue that Williamson’s promising attempt to explicate our understanding of vague language on the model of a certain sort of “inexact knowledge” is at best incomplete, since certain forms of vagueness do not fit Williamson’s model, and in fact fit an alternative model. Finally, we point out that a certain kind of irremediable inexactitude postulated by physics need not be-and is not commonly-interpreted as epistemic. Thus, there are aspects of contemporary science that do not accord well with the epistemicist outlook.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Roy Sorensen. Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1988. See especially, pp. 199–252.
Earlier, in his “Vagueness and Ignorance”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. Vol. 66 (1992), reprinted in Vagueness: a Reader, ed. R. Keefe and P. Smith, pp. 265–280. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1996. Later, in his Vagueness. London: Routledge. 1994.
Vagueness, pp. 203–212, 217, 231, 234–237.
Pp. 205–06.
“Vagueness and Ignorance”, p. 279–280.
Vagueness, pp. 136–37.
Vagueness, pp. 150–52.
See, for example, Williamson’s remark in “Vagueness and Ignorance” that “it would take a bold man to revise logic” in a way that does not treat contradictions as absurd. (Note, p. 267, Vagueness: a Reader.) Again, in Vagueness, p. 136: “How can an explicit contradiction be true to any degree other than 0?”
For a more complete discussion of this matter see Machina’s “Truth, Belief, and Vagueness”, J. Philosophical Logic, Vol. 5 (1976), pp. 51–53.
Vagueness, pp. 187–98.
Vagueness, pp. 216–230.
Vagueness, pp. 238–239.
Vagueness, pp. 232–233.
Vagueness, pp. 270–275.
Vagueness p. 232.
Williamson himself explicitly endorses this result for the K operator: “Any number of iterations of knowledge is possible in principle, but is available in a narrower range of cases than any lower number of iterations.” (Our italics.) Vagueness, p. 228.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Machina, K., Deutsch, H. Vagueness, ignorance, and margins for error. Acta Analytica 17, 19–45 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-002-1002-8
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-002-1002-8