This paper explores the relations between two logical approaches to vagueness: on the one hand the fuzzy approach defended by Smith (2008), and on the other the strict-tolerant approach defended by Cobreros, Egr\'e, Ripley and van Rooij (2012). Although the former approach uses continuum many values and the latter implicitly four, we show that both approaches can be subsumed under a common three-valued framework. In particular, we defend the claim that Smith's continuum many values are not needed to solve what Smith calls `the jolt problem', and we show that they are not needed for his account of logical consequence either. Not only are three values enough to satisfy Smith's central desiderata, but they also allow us to internalize Smith's closeness principle in the form of a tolerance principle at the object-language. The reduction, we argue, matters for the justification of many-valuedness in an adequate theory of vague language.
翻译:本文探讨了两种逻辑方法之间的关系:一方面,Smith(2008年)所维护的模糊方法,另一方面,Cobreros、Egr\'e、Ripley和van Rooij(2012年)所维护的严格宽容方法。虽然前者使用许多连续的价值观,而后者隐含了四种,但我们表明,这两种方法都可以被归入一个共同的三价框架之下。特别是,我们捍卫这样的主张,即Smith的连续许多价值观对于解决Smith所谓的“棘手问题”并不必要,而且我们表明这些价值观对于其逻辑后果也是不必要的。它们不仅三个价值足以满足Smith的中部德赛德拉塔,而且还使我们能够将Smith的近距离原则内化为对象语言上的宽容原则。我们争论说,减少是用一种含糊的语言的理论来解释许多价值的理由。