Instructions:
Write a 1500–2000 word paper that addresses points 1–4 (below). In addition to this prompt, you will also find a helpful sample outline that lays out a proposed structure for your paper. You will be graded on the quality of your arguments and exposition of the paradox.
Prompt:
Explain the Sorites paradox using your own example of a vague predicate and the chain of reasoning involved in generating the paradox.
Explain one of the two solutions considered by Michael Tye in “Sorites Paradoxes and the Semantics of Vagueness” download(the first solution using degrees of truth and the second provided by supervaluationism) and his criticism of that approach.
Explain Tye’s own solution that relies on three-valued logic. Be sure to explain the Law of Excluded Middle and how it fares under Tye’s proposal and precisely how this resolves the paradox.
If you have time, you may propose a criticism of Tye’s proposed solution to the paradox. However, you may have your hands full addressing points 1-3 and you will not be penalized if you don’t get to this point.
Sample Outline:
Introduction:
This section should briefly (one paragraph of ~5 sentences) introduce the topic and structure of the paper.
You do not need to fully explain the paradox in this section, but you should provide a short statement of what it is and what it seems to show.
This section should give the reader a clear idea of where the paper is headed and what you will aim to show in the paper.
This should be direct and straight to the point. There’s no need to start with lofty reflections like “Since the dawn of time, humans have wondered what it is to act rationally” or anything like that.
Setup:
This section should introduce and motivate the paradox using your own example of a vague predicate and the Sorites reasoning. This should clearly describe the paradoxes in your own words (as much as possible) and explain how the two relate.
Any important principles required to explain the paradox should also be introduced in this section, as well as a clear description of the paradoxical reasoning.
Explain:
Explain either the degrees of truth solution or the supervaluationist solution to the paradox.
Explain one of the reasons that Tye gives for rejecting the solution you considered in the previous point.
Explain:
Explain Tye’s proposed solution to the paradox.
Optional Reply:
Time permitting, you may propose a counterargument against Tye’s three-valued logic solution to the paradox.
Conclusion:
This section should be a relatively short recap of the main important points you covered in the paper. It may also mention things that may have been left unresolved.
Do not cite more than what is asked from you.
