Abstract
Soames's account is based on the old idea that borderline cases involve truthvalue gaps. He says rather little in justification of this idea, merely that it seems arbitrary where to locate the cut-off point for a vague term and that it is unclear what semantic mechanism could determine that point. The book shows no awareness of work on the epistemicist alternative that borderline cases involve irremediable ignorance of truth-values. Since I have defended that alternative at length elsewhere, I will not labour the point here. Surprisingly, Soames combines his anti-epistemicist commitments with the following two claims (216-17):
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
