Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Vagueness does not exist in the world itself.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The only intelligible account of vagueness locates vagueness in thought and language, not in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If vagueness is entirely a feature of thought and language, then the world contains no vagueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ontic vagueness requires that objects themselves have indeterminate identity conditions, but Evans (1978) demonstrated this generates contradictions via Leibniz's Law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sharp metaphysical facts determine all boundaries between properties (as structural realists like Ladyman argue), then apparent worldly vagueness is epistemic, not ontological.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The determinable-determinate hierarchy shows every natural property is fully determinate at the fundamental level, leaving no ontological gap for vagueness to inhabit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lewis's principle of 'precisification' shows that for any vague predicate, there exist multiple equally legitimate sharp extensions, all corresponding to precise worldly properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If competing precisifications each carve out determinate worldly features, then vagueness lies in our failure to select among them, not in the world's failure to be determinate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.