2 ms·

Also, we're not assuming the conclusion is correct, we're pointing out a paradox and asking for a resolution.

by ikeboy 11y ago

mannykannot 11y ago
I don't think I can do any more to explain it, but maybe you can work it out for yourself. Do what I suggested earlier, and try to figure out why, if this argument is correct, you cannot give a definitive answer to the question, what is the least number of grains of sand in a heap?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  My preferred resolution says that every group of grains of sand is not 100% a heap. I still think a theory that says it is has this problem. If we could simulate humans, we could in theory spin up a trillion versions, show each a different "heap", and find out exactly what size makes people call it a heap.
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    So vagueness is the answer for heaps, but not for pumpkins that differ by one molecule? How convenient for you! Of course, this would mean (going all the way back to your post that started this thread) that the pumpkin argument is not relevant to the sorities paradox. You can't have it both ways. I think you are aware, to some degree, that you have created this problem, and your second sentence is an attempt to get around it - but what you are doing in that sentence is to deny the fundamental premise of the sorities paradox! That is certainly one way to address it, and a very bold one, if I may say so. I am delighted to see that your understanding of the issues has evolved so radically in the course of this discussion.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >So vagueness is the answer for heaps, but not for pumpkins that differ by one molecule? What? No, my proposed solution (involving degrees of truth) applies equally in both examples. The first pumpkin is not 100% a pumpkin. But if you think the first one is unambiguously a pumpkin, then you do have the paradox.
mannykannot 11y ago
As for Zeno, the resolution is, you are using the wrong model.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Sure, but I don't think you've given a good model for vagueness. Either every unambiguous meta level up is still ambiguous, or one is not ambiguous and as such is subject to the paradox. The first seems not to describe our use of language. (Btw, I'd appreciate if you only replied to one of these chains. I've seen how multiple chains can confuse things and want to cut it off now. I probably should have edited the above reply into my other one, but let's fix it now, ok?)
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    You are right to say that I haven't given a good model of vagueness, but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed, and doing that doesn't require an alternative, and nor does the absence of one make the pumpkin argument more correct. N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues, and maybe there isn't one that would satisfy all philosophers.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed I don't think you've successfully pointed out a flaw. >N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues I asked for an issue with my proposal and haven't gotten one yet.

Also, we're not assuming the conclusion is correct, we're pointing out a paradox and asking for a resolution.

by ikeboy 11y ago

Also, we're not assuming the conclusion is correct, we're pointing out a paradox and asking for a resolution.

I don't think I can do any more to explain it, but maybe you can work it out for yourself. Do what I suggested earlier, and try to figure out why, if this argument is correct, you cannot give a definitive answer to the question, what is the least number of grains of sand in a heap?

ikeboy 11y ago
My preferred resolution says that every group of grains of sand is not 100% a heap. I still think a theory that says it is has this problem. If we could simulate humans, we could in theory spin up a trillion versions, show each a different "heap", and find out exactly what size makes people call it a heap.
- mannykannot 11y ago
  So vagueness is the answer for heaps, but not for pumpkins that differ by one molecule? How convenient for you! Of course, this would mean (going all the way back to your post that started this thread) that the pumpkin argument is not relevant to the sorities paradox. You can't have it both ways. I think you are aware, to some degree, that you have created this problem, and your second sentence is an attempt to get around it - but what you are doing in that sentence is to deny the fundamental premise of the sorities paradox! That is certainly one way to address it, and a very bold one, if I may say so. I am delighted to see that your understanding of the issues has evolved so radically in the course of this discussion.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >So vagueness is the answer for heaps, but not for pumpkins that differ by one molecule? What? No, my proposed solution (involving degrees of truth) applies equally in both examples. The first pumpkin is not 100% a pumpkin. But if you think the first one is unambiguously a pumpkin, then you do have the paradox.

mannykannot 11y ago

As for Zeno, the resolution is, you are using the wrong model.

ikeboy 11y ago
Sure, but I don't think you've given a good model for vagueness. Either every unambiguous meta level up is still ambiguous, or one is not ambiguous and as such is subject to the paradox. The first seems not to describe our use of language. (Btw, I'd appreciate if you only replied to one of these chains. I've seen how multiple chains can confuse things and want to cut it off now. I probably should have edited the above reply into my other one, but let's fix it now, ok?)
- mannykannot 11y ago
  You are right to say that I haven't given a good model of vagueness, but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed, and doing that doesn't require an alternative, and nor does the absence of one make the pumpkin argument more correct. N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues, and maybe there isn't one that would satisfy all philosophers.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed I don't think you've successfully pointed out a flaw. >N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues I asked for an issue with my proposal and haven't gotten one yet.