What are some of the leading answers to the Sorites paradox(s), for example the bald man or the heap paradox? Is it merely a linguistic problem
In the SEP article linked above, it says that epistemicists have accepted that the second premise is untrue. I don't understand this position.
Why have they assumed the property of being a child, let's say "childness" as an absolute as opposed to something that changes over time?
If we assume it to be the latter where there is a daily very small decrease in childness then there is no reason to reject the second statement. That is if they are a child on day n then they still are a child on day n+1, just slightly lesser. But the difference however insignificant is still there and adds up over time hence avoiding the need for a day of transition into adulthood.
Is there a specific reason being childlike is taken as an absolute property by philosophers? or if it does not matter in this case?
Edit: Please read my response to u/drinka40tonight. I do realize that a threshold still exists regardless of taking childness as an absolute or a degree. But this result is not an astonishing result as the article says.
Collapse and the Sorites Paradox
Monday, November 19, 2012
Posted by escapefromwisconsin at 8:15 PM
Often times those who talk about collapse run into quite a bit of difficulty. It's easy for people to dismiss this sort of talk as foolish rantings since day-to-day activities seem so normal. One way to understand the problems of talking about societal collapse is through a logical thought experiment devised by Ancient Greek philosophers called the Sorites Paradox.
Sorites is the Greek word for "heap." Imagine, for instance, a heap of sand on your desk. A heap contains maybe 1,000,000 grains of sand. If you take away a single grain of sand, is it still a heap? I think most of us would say, "of course it is!" Nothing's changed from any outward appearance, after all. If I take two grains away? Three? Four? Ten? No difference, of course it's still a heap of sand.
The problem is, I can just keep doing this - picking away a grain of sand out of the heap and asking you if it still a heap. Eventually we will be left with a single grain of sand. Is this a heap? Of course it isn't. But exactly when did it stop being a heap? Which grain did I remove to turn it from a heap to something else? Can you point to it? This concept also works with someone who is rich. Clearly if I take a dollar away from someone who is a millionaire, it will make little difference. The rich person is still rich. What if I keep doing it? At what point do they become poor? $100,000? $10,000? $100? $53.76?
A more formal statement of these premises would be: 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand (Premise 1) A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2).
Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one fewer grains), eventually forces one to accept the conclusion that a heap may be composed of just one grain of sand (and consequently, if one grain of sand is still a heap, then removing that one grain of sand to leave no grains at all still leaves a heap of sand; indeed a negative number of grains must also form a heap). [Wikipedia]
We can easily see how this applies to societal collapse. The problem arises from vague predicates. How do we define a heap? How do we define a collapse? When does one become the other? When does pre-collapse become post-collapse? What one single thing, when removed, causes the collapse? What one switch causes a pre-collapse
... keep reading on reddit β‘The critical question in the abortion debate is at which point does an entity obtain a right to life that supercedes any rights the mother may have to destroy it.
In philosophy, the different forms of the Sorites Paradox ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/) generate many similar questions regarding vague adjectives like heap, tall, etc. (e.g., when does a heap of sand become a non-heap if one individually removes grains of sand from it, or when does a 7ft. man become short if he shrinks in one inch increments).
This paradox provides the ingredients for an interesting argument against the pro-choice side:
P1. A 365 day old child has a right to life that its mother cannot infringe upon (hopefully agreed to by all)
P2. A 364 day old child has a right to life that its mother cannot infringe upon (follows from P1, since there is not a morally significant difference between a 365 day old child and a 364 day old child).
C. A fetus has a right to life that its mother cannot infringe upon (from P2 + successive applications of the same reasoning).
How do pro-choicers refute the above argument?
Is P1 false? (hard to see how).
Is P2 false? (hard to see how if P1 is true).
Does C not follow from P1 and P2? (hard to see how, because saying this requires one to pick some point where the right to life disappears because of some morally significant difference between the entities, which is difficult because they are all extremely similar)
EDIT:
If you want to claim that the argument is unsound, please specify where it goes wrong by saying which premise you take to be false (i.e., P1 or P2) or by stating that the argument is invalid (i.e., C does not follow from P1 and P2, even if P1 and P2 are true).
The law on chucking, in ELI5 terms, states that the bend in the bowling arm from the highest point till the point of release should not exceed 15 degrees. (Please correct me if I am wrong here, but the general point I am about to make should still stand regardless).
The 15 degree point was chosen (afair, i could be wrong) because that is the point at which the human eye can discern a noticeable chuck in the action. This is important, because every bowler chucks when bowling, but after a certain point we can start to see it.
The bowling tests that various bowlers have to go through have the ability to measure this bend in the arm, but as per the rulings, as bowler with 14 degrees is legal and one at 16 degrees is illegal.
I was reminded of this when I was reading up on the Sorites Paradox. Here is the wiki page for it.
> The sorites paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
In cricket, the moment the heap turns into a non-heap, or a bowler becomes a chucker is when it goes a degree above 15, even though the boundary chosen for this point is an approximation. Some people might notice a bend at lesser degrees, which is presumably what happens to bowlers who are called but clear the test (Bilal Asif from Pakistan recently). Others might not notice one that's more pronounced.
The problem is that cricket's anti-chucking rules were made with a misunderstanding of the human body (that an arm can have no bend when delivering the ball) and the Murali affair forced science into the matter. This is why many anti-chuckers complain that if unchecked, bowling would become baseball pitching. However, others argue that a bend of 20-30 degrees can be allowed, which is another way of saying that its at a point where adding more degrees hasn't yet turned it into a pitcher's throw.
A similar example are the 'umpire's calls' on LBWs, where you often see a situation that a ball is hitting the stumps on the full, but hawkeye decrees that only 49% of the stump was being hit and so it falls over to the yellow cate
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Wouldn't be a really cool idea to have a challenge every week or so where you're given a prompt to make an induction with? Here's a chance to get those watches swinging.
Here's my suggestion; for this induction prompt you are to incorporate the Sorites Paradox in an induction. You can post in the comments as a text script, an audio recording, or a video. Any length, no other restrictions. Make it yours!
I'm excited to view what you come up with!
1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand (Premise 1) A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2)
Why can i not deny the 2nd premise?
I am having a hard time grasping an understanding why their isn't just one set line, which is to say at X number the grains are a heap and and below X it is not.
I understand that if the number X were a # like 9 million then 9million-1 would seem also like a heap but by definition it isn't. Perhaps i am having a hard time grasping the whole idea of the paradox, is it to say that opinions such as what is a heap, what is tall has no actual value and no one is in a place to give a value? Therefore it is impossible to come up with x?
If i am not conveying my question properly perhaps an analogy will help
I have 479 Cookies, I would say I have about 40 dozen cookies but not exactly 40 dozen cookies. What is so wrong about this statement?
Now lets say a heap is = to 1000 grains why can i not say
I have 999 grains, I have about 1 heap but not quite.
If someone could clarify why if a heap by definition is X then why can't we be okay with saying x-1 is not a heap, although it may look like it, it simply isn't.
Bonus: can someone explain Supervaluationism in laymen terms thanks :)
There exist logics to deal with this, but their application to the real world is fraught with difficulties.
Consider: Two men each catch a fish every day. They need to eat a fish to survive. As long as they each have a single fish, one cannot say that one should steal from the other. Suppose one day one of the men is lucky or smart and catches two fish. Should he be required to share with the other? There is a chance he may not catch a fish tomorrow, so shouldn't he be able to save it just in case (supposing it will keep)? How many fish must he have until he must give some to the other man? Supposing the man has a powerful fishing apparatus and there is a village to feed, at what point must he give up the means of production?
Please tell me first what method of dealing with the sorites paradox you will use.
Earlier today, u/MadameIronMouse, put up a great post that got me to thinking.
Jimmy's transformation into Saul is an interesting take on Sorites Paradox in philosophy. I'm by no means a philosophy expert.... I just enjoy learning and exploring the implications.
The way I understand the paradox, it deals with the idea of boundaries with the famous example: when does a grouping of objects become a heap (or pile, etc.). Here's a succinct explanation I saw on the interwebs:
> The Paradox (restated)
>
>Suppose that you have a full head of hair. That means that you probably have around 100,000 individual hairs. Now pull one of them out. Does that make you bald? Of course not. A single hair doesnβt make any difference. 99,999 hairs still make a full head of hair. If you carry on long enough, you will have none left and you will definitely be bald. You have moved from a state of unquestionable non-baldness to a state of unquestionable baldness by taking a series of steps that can never on their own have that effect. But when did the change come about?
>
>...
>
> The (Original) Paradox
>
>β 1 grain of sand does not make a heap.
β If 1 grain does not make a heap, then 2 grains do not.
β If 2 grains do not make a heap, then 3 grains do not.
[and so on until β¦ ]
β If 99,999 grains do not make a heap, then 100,000 grains do not.
β So 100,000 grains of sand do not make a heap.
But at some point we will acknowledge that we do in fact have a heap of sand!
So with Jimmy: when do his accumulated actions make him Saul?
The thought-experiment proposed by the paradox illustrates the vague boundaries of classification. We can see Jimmy and we can see a later version of him that is Saul, but it is difficult to discern when the transformation occurs.
Another cool thought-experiment that deals with this issue is The Ship of Theseus. A ship is replaced one peace at a time over 1000 years and the question is: once all of the pieces are replaced, is it still the "Ship of Theseus." If it is no longer the "Ship of Theseus" when did it stop being so? If it still is the "Ship of Theseus" what
... keep reading on reddit β‘First, an explanation: The Sorites paradox, also known as the paradox of the heap, presents issues of blurred limits.
We can all agree that a single grain of sand is not an heap. Two aren't, either. However, as we keep adding sand grains, eventually we will get a heap.
The problem is that the definition of this heap is subjective. When do the sand grains become a heap, exactly, is a question that nobody can objectively answer.
This is related to property in a communist society.
While most communists will agree laptops are fine to keep in communism because they are personal property, they will also say it is fine as long as you need it: 1-2 laptops are fine, but 1000 laptops are not, because it deprives other people in the community from laptops.
When do the laptops owned (sand grains in the paradox) become private property (the heap in the paradox)?
I understand that we cannot judge players properly this early in the season, but this rebuttal seems fallible in the sense that we probably can't define a strict cut-off point for how many games a player needs to have played in.
I've been thinking about abortion and how it is like a reverse Sorites' paradox which asks the question 'when you take away from a mount of dirt little by little, at what point does it stop being a mound?' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox . In a similar way we ask 'at what point does a fetus (which grows gradually, little by little) become life?' I don't think anybody would disagree that a pregnant woman having an abortion 10 minutes before the baby is due is wrong, even a week out from the due date the baby would survive being delivered through cesarean so there's a strong argument that that is also wrong. Also most people wouldn't think of a newly fused sperm an egg as life, if you were to spill a petri dish of a fused sperm and egg on the floor you wouldn't think of it as someone dying. So logically at some point between conception and the moment before birth that fetus becomes a living human and it's wrong to kill it. I'm interested in where you think the line is, especially from a biological perspective. I'm also interested in what you think is the best way to form public consensus on this for the purposes of creating laws etc. Hope you can help!
This idea came from discussion with user ughaibu in my post, Proposed Solutions to the Surprise Hanging and Heap Paradoxes, which has been very poorly rated Β―_(γ)_/Β―.
According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/, mathematical induction may be used to imply the Sorites paradoxical reasoning.
Letβs look at the example that is used on that website.
βSo, for example, it is argued that since a man with 1 hair on his head is bald and since the addition of one hair cannot make the difference between being bald and not bald (for any number n, if a man with n hairs is bald then so is a man with n+1 hairs), then no matter what number n you choose, a man with n hairs on his head is bald.β
But we could have started with a full head of hair.
βLetβs say there is a man with 10,000 hairs on his head and since the subtraction of one hair on his head cannot make a difference between being bald and not bald, then no matter what number you choose to remove the man is not bald.β This is a contradiction since for any number the man is both bald and not bald.
Proof by contradiction says (Wiki):
-
P is assumed to be false, that is ~P is true.
-
It is shown that ~P implies two mutually contradictory assertions, Q and ~Q.
-
Since these cannot both be true, the assumption that P is false must be wrong, and P must be true.
P: I assume induction is an invalid method for expressing the sorties paradox.
~P: Now I assume that induction is a valid method for expressing sorties paradoxes.
Show that ~P implies a contradiction:
As shown above depending on which end of the number spectrum you start on you get different answers for whether the man is bald(Q) or not(~Q) and both follow from induction ~P. This is sort of the heart of the paradox.
Since these cannot both be the case then P must be true. Namely that induction is invalid to apply to Sorites paradoxes.
We could also show that conditional forms may be disproved by contradiction.
Conditional Sorites
1 is not a heap
If 1 is not a heap then 2 is not a heap
So 2 is not a heap.
If 2 is not a heap then 3 is not a heap
So three is not a heap
β¦.So an infinite number of grains is not a heap.
Other way now..
"1000000 grains is a heap.
If 1000000 grains is a heap then 999999 grains is a heap.
So 999999 grains is a heap. If 99
... keep reading on reddit β‘Suppose you're a sentiocentric vegan and you find yourself in an argument with a bunch of carnivores. After claiming that - ceteris paribus - sentience is the ultimate basis of any moral consideration, you encounter a very peculiar counterargument.
>Oh yeah? And have you ever happened to kill an extremely annoying and hungry mosquito? Or a big, phat spider that was using your room as free hotel? If so, that's a criminal offense (according to your own worldview). If no, where does this ends? Taking a stroll through the woods is guaranteed to bring about some deaths (of creatures that are barely visible to the naked eye).
If one's using this line of reasoning to justify, say, killing a cow I know that's a blatant non sequitur. However, ultimately, there are many people willing to criticize my own justifications just because the barriers can get murky. This is especially common in debates about moral and legal permissibility of abortion.
>When a person p states that moral/legal status of a fetus can be determined if and only if a certain threshold of time t since conception has been reached, then there must be a t +- 1 where fetus was lacking such status. But modern embryology textbooks hardly ever mention such radical changes in a short period of time. Therefore, any similar (temporal) distinctions must be arbitrary (to some degree).
What are tour thoughts, /r/askphilosophy?
Or maybe better, do the same with a copyrighted photo.
A few days ago, I posted about a weekly series I'm doing on strange philosophy. Today we published the third article, this one about Peter Unger and the sorites paradox.
After talking to the owner, the plan is to publish a new article every Monday. Next week will be Schopenhauer's pessimism. Thanks for reading!
Question: Is there a fundamental difference between the Sorites paradox and the Ship of Theseus paradox? Aren't they just the same paradox dressed up with different illustrations?
Background: I minored in philosophy in college because I found it interesting, but I primarily took classes in political theory and philosophy of law. So neither paradox had real implications for my coursework. I was exposed to the Sorites paradox briefly in my one class in philosophy of language, but I wasn't exposed to the Ship of Theseus paradox at all in school. I have, however, seen it quite a few times here on reddit (in r/philsophy and in r/askreddit) and every time I read it, I can't help but think "this is just the Sorites paradox in sheep's wool."
I am almost done with the text Vagueness by Timothy Williamson and have a better appreciation for the Sorites' paradox. But I was wondering if Reddit had an opinion on the matter.
In case you are not familiar with the Sorties paradox, it goes something like this. You have a heap of salt on a table and I remove one cube of salt from the heap. I then ask you is this still considered a heap of salt. If you are not a wise person, you will then say yes instead of avoiding to answer the question. I then remove another cube, and ask you the same question. I continue until there is only one cube of salt left and ask is this a heap. You will answer no obviously. The paradox is that there was a threshold that was passed where the heap was no longer a heap yet it was not noticed or shown when i continued to remove one cube at a time. Obviously there is a point in the life time of the heap that the heap was no longer a heap but this was not distinguishable during the process of removing cubes.
I am going to soon write a 7 page paper on it in the next coming week and want to try and describe the paradox not in the analytical methods used by Timothy but to compare vagueness to that of a color gradient. At each instance of a removal or addition of a substance the whole changes as a less or more from the previous state. I was thinking that perhaps the way this paradox is evasive is that the way it is asked is what causes it to be a paradox. As you move from a heap to no heap, the question should be is this less of a heap? I don't know if this is completely coherent but want to have a second opinion before i approach my professor with this thesis.
I tried to draw an example of what I mean, hopefully this will make it clearer what I am trying to describe. The big difference i feel that would make this paradox more understandable is allowing the possibility of many thresholds.
http://imgur.com/LqzZt
