[Home]History of ImpreciseLanguage

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences

Revision 9 . . February 17, 2001 2:45 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 8 . . February 17, 2001 2:43 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 7 . . February 17, 2001 2:42 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 6 . . February 17, 2001 2:39 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 5 . . February 17, 2001 2:38 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 4 . . February 17, 2001 2:32 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 3 . . February 17, 2001 2:29 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 2 . . February 17, 2001 2:23 am by (logged).bomis.com
Revision 1 . . February 17, 2001 2:21 am by (logged).bomis.com
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 14c14
Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I) have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like Bertrand Russell, simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).
Many philosophers and logicians (better prepared than I) have confronted this argument and registered their analysis. Some, like [Bertrand Russell], simply deny that logic works with vague concepts. Others go so far as destruction of all arguments of this form, including mathematical induction (which is not really a Sorites argument in my opinion).

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
Search: