Where The Heap Ends

Written by Studio AM.

Take ten thousand grains of sand piled on a table. That is a heap. Now suppose that removing one grain cannot turn a heap into a non-heap. Repeat that apparently harmless rule, and it eventually tells you that one grain is a heap. The puzzle is called the sorites paradox, from the Greek word for heap.

The starting judgment, the small-step rule, and the conclusion cannot all be accepted together. Philosophers disagree about the best response. Some accounts reject sharp boundaries for vague terms; others defend sharp boundaries that we cannot know. Still others change how borderline statements are evaluated. The paradox does not itself establish one of these solutions.

A related practical difficulty arises when rules use terms such as young, poor, or dangerous. A policy may require a precise cutoff even when ordinary language supplies no obvious one. Setting it arbitrarily, without considering evidence or purpose, would be hard to defend. A chosen threshold can instead be justified by the task it serves and the costs of placing it elsewhere.

The practical lesson offered here is to explain why a boundary is useful, while distinguishing that decision from a complete theory of what vague words mean.

Questions

Choose an answer. The explanation appears after you answer.

  1. Question 1 of 4

    What is the main claim of the passage?

  2. Question 2 of 4

    Where does the word sorites come from?

  3. Question 3 of 4

    Why might a policy cutoff need justification beyond the ordinary meaning of a word?

  4. Question 4 of 4

    What does “arbitrarily” mean in the third paragraph?

Score: none answered yet.

More passages

Practise reading