2012
DOI: 10.1093/analys/ans034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Indeterminacy and normative silence

Abstract: Vagueness can be narrowly conceived or broadly conceived. Paradigmatic features of narrow vagueness include its susceptibility to sorites paradoxes, as well as the presence of borderline cases (cases where we'd like to say that it's vague whether Patchy is red, for example). Borderline or vague predications are usually thought of as examples of a more general phenomenon, vagueness in the broad sense or indeterminacy. Indeterminacy has all sorts of instances that aren't obviously associated with sorites series.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Associating determinacy operators with the notion of historical possibility signals that the only source of indeterminacy to be considered is the indeterminacy of the future. This usage is not congenial to those who maintain that the indeterminacy of the future belongs to a broader conceptual category that includes other kinds of indeterminacy (as suggested in Barnes and Williams 2011 and also elaborated by Williams 2012Williams , 2014. I reiterate that I make these terminological choices primarily for convenience.…”
Section: A Formal Language For Indeterminacy and Foreknowledgementioning
confidence: 96%
“…Associating determinacy operators with the notion of historical possibility signals that the only source of indeterminacy to be considered is the indeterminacy of the future. This usage is not congenial to those who maintain that the indeterminacy of the future belongs to a broader conceptual category that includes other kinds of indeterminacy (as suggested in Barnes and Williams 2011 and also elaborated by Williams 2012Williams , 2014. I reiterate that I make these terminological choices primarily for convenience.…”
Section: A Formal Language For Indeterminacy and Foreknowledgementioning
confidence: 96%
“…Some highlights include (Field, 2000(Field, , 2003a(Field, ,b, 2008, (Wright, 2001), (Paris, 2001), (Schiffer, 2003), (Hawthorne, 2005), (Priest, 2006), Smith (2008Smith ( , 2010, (Barnett, 2009), (MacFarlane, 2010, (Caie, 2012). See also: (Williams, 2012c(Williams, , 2014 The overall shape is what is crucial here. We have a characterization of rational belief directly in terms of truth values, a characterization of rational belief via logical constraints; and an interconnection between truth and logic.…”
Section: I1 the Centrality Of Nonclassical Theory Of Mindmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…I have argued against the general assumption that there is a single cognitive role associated with indeterminacy elsewhere (Williams, 2012c). It is striking that the Reconciliation project places such tight constraints on the cognitive role of indeterminacy, including the demand for variation for different types of indeterminate survival.…”
Section: Iii3 Full Reconciliation Requires Pluralism About Cognitivementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Perhaps but it is similar to another such case: the vagueness of counterfactual dependence. Further, indeterminacy extends beyond vagueness (see Williams 2012) and so indeterminacy pluralism need not be about vagueness at all. ity naturally arises here.…”
Section: Indeterminacy Worriesmentioning
confidence: 99%