
On vagueness, or, when is a heap of sand not a heap of sand? - Vigier
https://aeon.co/ideas/on-vagueness-when-is-a-heap-of-sand-not-a-heap-of-sand
======
joggery
I like to consider the difference between 'one','a couple','a
few','several','many'. e.g 1,2,3-6,5-12,10+ respectively.

>Vagueness isn’t a problem about logic; it’s a problem about knowledge.

I think it's more to do with _context_. The transition from 'a grain' to 'a
pile' to 'a heap' where those terms are actually _useful_ is normally clear in
the context of whatever problem we're trying to solve.

The confusion arises from the fact that 'a grain' is considered to be well-
defined without context and that language refers to it directly. Thus we
lament that we can't adequately define 'heap'. Whereas in fact all language is
metaphorical and indirect, and definitions can't rescue us from this. So even
the label 'a grain' is fuzzy if you look deeply and scientifically enough.

~~~
woodandsteel
>The transition from 'a grain' to 'a pile' to 'a heap' where those terms are
actually useful is normally clear in the context of whatever problem we're
trying to solve.

That's the position of pragmatist philosophers, the existential-
phenomenologists and the analytic philosophers influenced by the later
Wittgenstein.

In Western philosophy, there are two competing ideas about the metaphysical
status of basic concepts. According to one, as in Platonism, dualism, and
materialism, concepts concerning the real world are perfect, like mathematical
ideas. In the other view, concepts are the products of the great complexities
of human living, and so are inherently vague, complex, and contextual. In the
last century or so, I would say the later idea has been winning out, though
many philosphers still hold the former one.

------
jasonl99
A few months ago I bookmarked a 1923 talk/essay by Bertrand Russell that is
actually entitled Vagueness. I thought it was extremely interesting to read
the perspective of a cleary-brilliant thinker prior to the computer age.

[http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...](http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/vagueness.htm)

------
woodruffw
I appreciate the author's dispensation with fuzzy logic as a suitable answer
to the problem of the heap, but I'm not sure that his answer (a lack of
knowledge) is any more persuasive.

As evidenced by his formulation of the sorites paradox, we all seem to have an
intuitive notion of when a heap transitions to a less-than-heap (for lack a
better word) or individual. One possible description (which I don't claim is
final) that aligns with this intuition is that the whole stands out more than
its parts. A heap, then, is when an object exists more on its own than as _of_
other objects. The same might be said for crowds, flocks of birds, &c.

Just my two cents.

------
gumby
Alternatively you could consider a functional definition. If you need to
consider a group of grains collectively, and they are stacked touching each
other, they are a heap.

Likewise, is it a boat if you make it and never plan to put it in the water,
but use it as a table? Is it a boat if you lie on a block of foam and paddle?

If you think things have some sort of platonic essence, these concepts are
hard. If you think the definition of a thing is the role it fills, this
particular problem is easier.

------
mtVessel
I don't understand the author's point about the two heaps. Clearly there are
two separate propositions at play -- the "heapness" of either pile, and
whether or not the two heap-like entities are identical. The first requires
fuzzy logic because the definition of "heap" is vague. The second does not
because the rules (take a grain off one for each grain removed from the other)
are precisely defined. There is no inherent contradiction just because two
different systems are in use at once.

------
freshhawk
How do you discuss this issue without bringing up the problems with
essentialism?

A "heap" is an under-defined term and if you treat it like it isn't you
confuse yourself. More interestingly, so is "alive". Fuzzy logic doesn't
apply.

It's pretty fantastic that we can use vagueness and metaphor to communicate so
richly, unfortunate that we get so used to it we often confuse ourselves.

