Vagueness and Coherence

Abstract

Dummett and Wright doubt the coherence of vague predicates. Dummett claims that the rules for such predicates are themselves inconsistent. Wright takes the sorites paradox to constitute a great difficulty for the view that a user of a vague term follows a rule. Wittgenstein says that rules can be created or modified, if they need to be. Here is a clue to solve the problem of the coherence of vague predicates. But cannot we explain their consistency without recourse to the idea of following a rule? Davidson's theory of inter-pretation sheds light on the question. For, according to Davidson, our linguistic activity presupposes that we should treat an interpretee as a rational being who has a lot of true beliefs about the world. This approach opens up the possibility of thinking of vagueness as a semantic matter. The meaning of a vague predicate depends on the situation in which it is used. But, even if the situation is determined, another kind of indeterminacy (which I think is semantic) remains. Hence the sorites paradox. Epistemicism holds that vagueness comes from ignorance (which I think is also semantic). Does vagueness as semantic indeterminacy or ignorance imply the renunciation of bivalence? Not necessarily. As indeterminacy of translation is compatible with bivalence, so is semantic indeterminacy or ignorance.