The Sorites Paradox

THE SORITES PARADOX The paradox of sorites is another famous paradox created by Eubulides of Miletus. This paradox applies the idea of vaqueness. The word sorites comes from the Greek word soros, which means "heap." [stack] The paradox of sorites states: Imagine you nave a sand pile. Although a grain of sand does not produce a pile, many grains, such as 1,000,000 grains, for example, do produce piles. 1. If you release just one grain out of 1,000,000 grains of sand, you'll still have a pile. 2. If you release another grain of sand, you'll still have a pile. 3. If you release another grain of sand, then you still have a pile. Finally, you can get rid of enough grains of sand that they are no longer considered piles, but at what stage? Is 50 grains of sand still considered a pile but 499 grains of sand is not? The paradox of sorites is also seen in another paradox of creating Eubulides: the bald man. This paradox states: 1. If a man has one hair on his head, then he is considered bald. 2. If a man with only one hair on his head is considered bald, a man with two hairs on his head is considered bald. 3. If a man with two hairs on his head is considered bald, then a man with three hairs on his head is considered bald. Even though a man with 1. , 000,000 strands of hair would definitely not be considered baid, according to logic, he should be considered so. So in what way are men no longer considered bald? Lob Frege and Bertrand Russell argue that the ideal language must have precision and that natural language has flaws. By getting rid of the vagueness, people will get rid of the term soritis, thereby getting rid of the paradox of sorites. Later, the American philosopher Willard van Orman Quine believed ambiguity could be eliminated from the natural language of the frozen entirely. Although this affects the way people speak, "sweet simplicity", as Quine describes it, is not in vain. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS There are four answers that philosophers usually use to explain the paradox of the sorites: Solus i- the proposed solution: 1. Denying that logic applies to the sorites paradox 2. Refuting some opinions in the scrit paradox 3. Denying the validity of the paradox of sorites Let's take a look at every possible solution. 4. Accepting the paradox of sorites as a voice Denying that logic applies to the paradox of the Sorites. Denying that logic applies to the Sorites paradox doesn't seem to be the best pcaible solution. It would seem, in order for logical to have any influence, the word must be applied to natural language and not just to the ideal form of cf language. Therefore, the terms apology are inevitable and must be handled in other ways. Denying some places. Refuting some thug-paradoxical premises of sorites is the most common solution today. In these solutions, logic can be applied to natural language; However, there are several issues related to where the Soritos paradox is based. Epistemic Theory In epistemic theory, a single condition is considered false and there is a certain point of leeway in each paradox of sorites where the predicate no longer applies (and in its place, negation applies). If we use the paradox of the bald man again as an example: 1. A man who had one hair on his head was considered bald. 2. If a man who has one hair on his head is considered bald, then a man who has two hairs on his head is considered bald. 3. If a person with two strands of hair on his head is considered bald, then a person with three strands of hair on his head is considered bald. Therefore, a man who has 1,000.0c0 hair on his head is considered bald. Imagine now that we reject one of the other thoughts in addition to the first premise. For example, let's imagine that the cutoff point is at 130 hairs. This means that a person who has 129 hairs on his head will be bald, while a person who has 130 hairs on his head will not be bald naturally, many doubt that epistemic theory. If one of those places is wrong, how can one know which one is prarnise? Moreover, how can one know this information? If we use the word bald, it has a meaning because of how we use it but how can we use that word to define a standard when we don't know what the standard is? The Theory of True Value Emptiness Another theory, the truth value gap theory, states that we cannot know the switch point because there is no specific point. Intuition says there is a group of people who say they are baids is true, and there is another group of people who say they are bald is false. However, there was also a group of people in the middle. For the people in the middle who call them bald, it is neither right nor wrong. For these people, the word bald is undefined. According to the truth value gap theory, because sentences can be undefined instead of true, not all assumptions are true. However, even the theory of the value gap of truth is a problem. If you see the phrase "is it rain or it is not raining", you will usually take this as a logical truth. However, under the truth value gap theory, if there is a case of rain limits, both "it is rain" and "no rain" will be undefined, and therefore nothing will be true. Super lethargy seeks to solve the problems discussed by the middle class in the theory of the truth value gap. Supervaluationism When looking at what bald supervaluism is, there are examples of thin-haired people who are not correct to say that they are bald (as dictated by the rules to be "bald"); However, it would not be wrong to say they are bald as well. Therefore, it must come to us to define this case in a super judgment, drawing a line between baldness and non-baldness is referred to as "sharpening" the term baldness. Although a simple sentence regarding the borderline scenario lacks truth value, the compound of this sentence will actually have a truth value and overvaluation will allow the standard logic to be maintained (even with the existence of a truth value gap). With the idea of sharpening, supervaluism states the following: . A sentence is correct if and only if it is true in relation to all the elaborations. . A sentence is wrong if and only if it is wrong with respect to all the words. . A sentence can be defined if and only if it is true with respect to a sharp and wrong opinion with respect to sharpening another. So according to supervaluationism, the paradoxical premise of sorites would be right about some sharps, wrong about others, and hence, some cannot be defined. This allows for strong reasoning with weak conclusions. However, even supervaluism has problems as a theory. Supervaluationism states "it's rain or it's not raining" is always true even if neither of these things is true. If we go back to the idea of baldness bf, supervaluism would assert that the tne statement "if you have 130 hairs on your head, you are not bald, but if you have one less, you are bald" is false, while also claiming "there is a certain amount of hair that is not bald, and if you have one flaw, you are bald", it is true" There is clearly a contradiction here. Denying the Validity of the Sorites Paradox The third option in attempting to solve the paradox of sorites states that one can accept all premises but deny the conclusion. According to this option, the sentence is not considered completely false; Rather, they are considered true to some degree. Therefore, every statement should be determined by the degree of truth in its part. Accepting the Sorites Paradox as a Voice The last option is to accept the paradox of sorites and accept them as votes. If one embraces the paradox of the sorites. Then, it seems that both positive and negative versions should be accepted. No one is bald and everyone is bald. Any number of grains will result in a stack and no number of grains can make a stack. However, embracing the paradox of sorites should be more limited to accepting classical reasoning and rejecting terms such as baldness or cognition, so that these words do not apply.