Years ago I briefly studied vagueness in the forensic science context, mostly focused on the writing of reports. It now strikes me that the main ideas of your text are similar to recent developments in the interpretation of forensic evidence: a “new” paradigm is underway, and it adopts the Bayesian approach to probability theory. The subjective (personal) assignment of a probability value to describe one’s degree of belief is also dependent on context, available information, data, and experience. The frequentist approach to probability tends to “focus on the number of grains of sand”, and leads forensic scientists to ask the wrong questions and examine the wrong data.
Very interesting. It strikes me that the Sorites Paradox might also describe a key challenge in public policy. Often (almost always) public policy efforts are designed to achieve more or less of something. What remains unclear is what a 'good' let alone what a 'right' amount of that something is. Success is defined by difference against the status quo rather than difference with a defined ultimate objective. The end result is that, while some sand remains, it is considered by policy as a heap, because there is no other way of deciding that it is not.
I can see your point but I hadn't made the connection. I wouldn't have expected a technical, nerdy philosophical paradox to have this application but I'm glad it does!
Years ago I briefly studied vagueness in the forensic science context, mostly focused on the writing of reports. It now strikes me that the main ideas of your text are similar to recent developments in the interpretation of forensic evidence: a “new” paradigm is underway, and it adopts the Bayesian approach to probability theory. The subjective (personal) assignment of a probability value to describe one’s degree of belief is also dependent on context, available information, data, and experience. The frequentist approach to probability tends to “focus on the number of grains of sand”, and leads forensic scientists to ask the wrong questions and examine the wrong data.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of this shift in forensic science. I might have to take a look. The practical application looks very applicable.
Very interesting. It strikes me that the Sorites Paradox might also describe a key challenge in public policy. Often (almost always) public policy efforts are designed to achieve more or less of something. What remains unclear is what a 'good' let alone what a 'right' amount of that something is. Success is defined by difference against the status quo rather than difference with a defined ultimate objective. The end result is that, while some sand remains, it is considered by policy as a heap, because there is no other way of deciding that it is not.
I can see your point but I hadn't made the connection. I wouldn't have expected a technical, nerdy philosophical paradox to have this application but I'm glad it does!