Vagueness, Logic and Use: Four Experimental Studies on Vagueness

Mind and Language 26 (5):540-573 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Although arguments for and against competing theories of vagueness often appeal to claims about the use of vague predicates by ordinary speakers, such claims are rarely tested. An exception is Bonini et al. (1999), who report empirical results on the use of vague predicates by Italian speakers, and take the results to count in favor of epistemicism. Yet several methodological difficulties mar their experiments; we outline these problems and devise revised experiments that do not show the same results. We then describe three additional empirical studies that investigate further claims in the literature on vagueness: the hypothesis that speakers confuse ‘P’ with ‘definitely P’, the relative persuasiveness of different formulations of the inductive premise of the Sorites, and the interaction of vague predicates with three different forms of negation
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-08-13
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Vagueness.Williamson, Timothy
The Things We Mean.Schiffer, Stephen

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Tolerant, Classical, Strict.Cobreros, Pablo; Egré, Paul; Ripley, David & van Rooij, Robert
Vagueness and Order Effects in Color Categorization.Egré, Paul; de Gardelle, Vincent & Ripley, David
Tolerant Reasoning: Nontransitive or Nonmonotonic?Cobreros, Pablo; Egré, Paul; Ripley, Dave & van Rooij, Robert

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
155 ( #16,477 of 38,044 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #21,417 of 38,044 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.