PROMOTING THE SORITES PARADOX TO A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL

I. M. R. Pinheiro

Abstract: In this paper, our last paper on the sequence of definite proof of having solved,
for good, the Sorites paradox, we connect our previous papers and provide the curious
and inquisitive reader with final insights.
Key-words: Sorites, paradox, contextualism, solution, linguist, linguistics.

1. Introduction

So far, we have managed to prove:

4) The Sorites is not a scientific problem the way it is currently found in the
literature. It is, rather, an unskilled presentation of an allurement to language
gifts/allowances. Therefore, it is mistakenly mentioned, or referred to, as a
scientific problem, whenever such has happened in the scientific literature (see
[PINHEIRO 2004]);
5) Language is the messiest, and loosest, scope of human interaction of all, where
people are free, finally, to associate pointers to real-world references the way they
wish ([PINHEIRO 2005]). In the `injection’ formed between the sigmatoids set
and that of the objects of this World, that is, in establishing a Cartesian
relationship between World references and sigmatoids, there is no right or wrong,
for each person is perfectly entitled to do whatever they like with the words which
`escape’ from their mouths/hands.
There is right or wrong in fully mechanizable pieces of language, such as
Mathematics or logical systems, that is because someone, or several `someones’,
have been able to design theories and present those theories via `universal
paradigms’, that is, sigmatoids allowing no double interpretation by anyone else
on Earth, provided they are `logical thinkers’ who have had access to their
theories.
In what regards the dictionary, there should be a `right’ and a `wrong’, as to the
application of a certain sigmatoid to a World object. However, what seems wrong
today may, as well, be included in the dictionary of tomorrow as correct, meaning
more `precursor’ thought than mistake (for instance, the application of the term
`chicken’ to women, or `bull’ to men…). Just like a school discipline exam,
however, things will be measured considering time of evaluation and what is
found in solid theory as correct by time of the application trial. One must notice
that the paradigm must be accompanying the `exam question’ for it to be
`sensical’, or fair, with the person/actions of the person under analysis.
Therefore, to simply utter `you cannot use chicken to refer to a woman’ is
logically inconsistent: People may do whatever they like with the words coming
out of their mouths…
It would be necessary to inform the person that the paradigm considered is the
`current lexicon’, so that the communication is `less polluted’, or contains `less
noise’ to it, as it should be the only aim of Science;
6) There are always mental paradigms, inaccessible to the listener/reader of the
words of a person. For the communication game to be effective, or hold more
chances of being, it is only `fair’ that the speaker/writer gives their mental
paradigms away somehow;
7) A well-posed problem in Science must be objective, clear, and never hold
enthymemes ([PINHEIRO 2004]), once Science is not supposed to be gambling,
or a game, it is supposed to be something highly useful for society, which allows
input of top amount of people as possible, for solving scientific problems means
progressing, what is, trivially, a basic objective of any rational society.

This way, to include the Sorites in the scientific world, one only needs the `busker’
([PINHEIRO 2004]) to expose his/her own mental paradigm for `heap’.
Once they hold a picture of what `their heap’ is then the public/audience involved
may address their question with perfection.
Scientists would be even using computers and, by means of them, uttering, with no
possible mistake, `yes, it is still your heap’ or `no, it is not your heap anymore’, that
is, Science in the Sorites and the Sorites, finally, in Science!
Notice that this is almost the same level of things the linguist works with: The linguist
will not always have the paradigms told to them by the speaker/writer, however.
Notice, as well, that the `busker’s’ paradigm is an actual enthymeme of the problem
and, if not revealed, it will generate millennia of confusion in the human minds, as the
history of the problem confirms.
Clarity, objectivity, in broadest form, are essential requisites for a problem to belong
to Science.
Therefore, in this short note, we will simply explain how the problem should be
proposed if ever intended to be a scientific problem, passive of any `mechanizable’
logical analysis, that is, analysis via logical systems which may be inserted in the
computers, or fully mechanicized.

2. Science in the Sorites

If there is any science in the Sorites, one will have to get rid of a lot of `layers’ of
confusion, or noise, to find it.
Basically, emotions are definitely not Science. As much as people want to insist that
every human action and reaction is passive of scientific studies, it is definitely the
case that it will all be beyond Science for at least a few good dozens of years from
now.
One does not insert a lexicon word which is vague in problems of Mathematics
because it `may be passive of scientific dealing some day’: All we do is never
including them in relevant pieces, or key points, of the mathematical problem at all in
order to keep Mathematics `playing sane’, or scientific.
Therefore, observation skills, belonging to each individual, cannot, possibly, be
included in Science. If they are ever required to solve a scientific problem, then there
must also be a scientific way (already pre-determined) to decide on the observational
elements, as to state the individual observer was `accurate’ or not in their judgment.
The personal observation of the presenter cannot, as well, trivially, be part of the
scientific game: It is either Science or a `guessing game’.
For the detachment between presenter and his/her paradigm of the sigmatoid under
analysis to take place, it is necessary that his/her paradigm gets expressed in a
`universal language’, such as the symbols of Classical Logic, so carefully chosen by
Frege and Russell.
It seems that the only universal way to write about the Sorites is an actual picture of
the `idea’ held by the presenter on the sigmatoid.
The obvious question would then be `do you think this is still `my bold’ or not?’
This all obviously is refined to our reasoning here because we have already proven
that it is impossible that everyone on Earth, or vast majority, when making use of a
lexicon word, bears absolutely the same paradigms as another person ([PINHEIRO
2008]): Paradigms will differ by `degrees’, let’s say, or seconds, or fractions of
seconds…
Science has to be a universal language, as we also have already explained in
[PINHEIRO 2004].
If each member of any couple of individuals will always pick different paradigms, or
mental images, for things, then the only scientific approach to the Sorites is via
individual reasoning, at least from the presenter’s share.
Once the presenter is then able to determine what the sigmatoid application
possibilities are for him/her precisely, what is already a bit difficult, or impossible, to
envisage, they can then choose a sample to show to others what the sigmatoid is.
Of course, once there is a sample, there will be, finally, as Science demands, a `right’
and a `wrong’. Then, it does not matter how the `right’ and `wrong’ are measured, as
long as it is all scientific, that is, the method of measurement convinces everyone on
Earth who has been introduced to Logic and understood, as well as accepted, its
principles. For instance, the TV manufacturers, dealing with image, would be the
best, or most skilled professionals, to tell whether a person is `right’, or `wrong’, for
sure, when colour is the sigmatoid to be applied: They would then compare the
pictures of the presenter with what has been picked as equivalent by the audience
members to do so.
However, one must pay attention to the fact that even with the technician it might be
the case that the process fails: Even though computers hold continuous measurement
`takers’ of colours, it is still the human hand which controls the passage from one
nuance to another.
Only in fully automated comparison we could be close to an absolute `right’ or
`wrong’.
But, even the machine allows for mistakes!
It would work with precision for certain sequences of colour nuances, as long as the
difference between one object colour and another were not smaller than the scale of
the machine measurement piece. Of course, unless we find elements of measurement
which go beyond our sight, what is again unlikely, we would be stuck with the
inability of judging similarity of colours with precision for sequences where the `δ’
is too small, or small enough to overcome the precision of the
machine.
This way, not only we need to have the presenter’s paradigms out of his/her head via
universal expression, but we also need to guarantee our `δ’ is big enough to
match the scale of our measurement pieces of `our machines’.
`Bold’ is an easier case, for once the presenter sorts out their paradigms, there will be
a number of hairs that should be/not be there for `bold’ to be said to be `adequate’!
Even the distribution on the head, provided we have a person, may be precisely
measured via computer, given the size of the hair and how easy it is to shade the
region of distribution and measure it proportionally to the head of each proposed
individual.
The Science in the Sorites is then present after n, that is `δ ≥ n’ for each
sigmatoid application, where `n Є IR’.
`δ’ may be zero for `bold’, or even for `colour’, it all depends on the
sequence of entities being analysed…
Science in the Sorites is then on the ability to express the presenter’s paradigm in a
universal way and in the determination of delta, as from what value onwards the
soritical sequence becomes suitable for Science or starts `fitting in’ it.

3. Sorites in Science

Every scientific unsolved problem is a Sorites. For instance, when they were in doubt
as to whether the Earth would be a square based shape or a circle based one, one
could say that it was a square based shape up to the moment one goes to the edge of
the square, when it then flattens out again in what seems to be another square…
Where does it stop being a square based shape and it starts being a circle based one?
The answer is easy: When one is able to see the Earth from outside of it, starting at a
distance X from it. But where precisely?
You see…
We are then writing about a square based shape as for `the human eye/perception’.
The Sorites is the core of every scientific formulation, basically.
One starts with a question; that question may always, or almost always, be seen as a
Sorites…
Separating what is scientific from what is not is actually `solving’ the problems,
always.
When the scientists were able to work out that going by boat and measuring with their
perception was not good enough, and extrapolated, they then understood that it was a
matter for the machine, which would take a picture of the Earth and insert it in a
computer.
Interesting enough is that even the computer findings might just be an illusion, for the
computer is manufactured by us and via our sight/perceptions. It might be the case,
then, that another race has got more points in their `eye matrix’ than ours and, in
looking at `our sphere’, they actually see a square based piece: Interesting enough!
Basically, all we label as scientific may be proven totally equivocated by a more
`accurate’ race, in terms of senses.
We program the computers, therefore it is us defining how many points go there, what
the shape is, etc.
How scientific the human race is for real is actually another Sorites which may only
be solved, trivially, from outside of it… (perhaps after our death?)
 4. Conclusion

In this note, we have made it even clearer, to the general public, that the Sorites is one
of the most beautiful ideas ever emerging from the poets’ minds…It should certainly
be incorporated to the usual lexicon because it expresses the same idea Mathematics
has expressed with limits, it is just that this idea got `extended’ to the human
perception, or human ability of reaching universal understanding of things, or human
ability of evolving on the matters of Communication (notice that the simple study of
all subtleties of the problem leads to our evolving on the art of understanding, and
improving, communication between us and others, or others and others).
Besides, we also have explained, and proved, that for a Sorites to be included in the
class of scientific problems, one needs to be able to fully determine the paradigm of
the presenter, via universal expression, with the presenter agreeing with all on top of
being able to determine the minimum size of delta, which is the increment appearing
on the entity’s characteristic from one member of the sequence to the other, as we
have explained in [PINHEIRO 2003].
We have also proved that the Sorites is intrinsically connected to the usual scientific
method via motivational query.

5. References

[PINHEIRO, M. R. 2003] A Solution to the Sorites Paradox. Semiotica 160, (1/4),

2006.

[PINHEIRO, M. R. 2004] Inferential step in the Sorites: logical or human? Preprint

located at www.geocities.com/msorfiap2, under analysis.

[PINHEIRO, M. R. 2005] Translation `avec’ samba. Semiotica, year not yet

determined.

[PINHEIRO, M. R. 2008] How many `littles’ of little bits? Under analysis.