Chapter 3 – Moore and Parker

As the text explains, vagueness results when the scope of a concept is not clear—
that is, when there are borderline cases.

A word or phrase is vague if the group of things to which it applies has borderline
cases. Consider the word “bald.” It’s clear that Paris Hilton is not bald. It’s equally
clear that Patrick Stewart is bald. But there are lots of people in between (including
both your authors). Many of those between the two extremes are borderline cases:
It is not at all clear whether the word “bald” should apply to them—it’s the sort of
thing about which reasonable people could disagree. For this reason, it is correct to
say that baldness is a vague concept. how we deal with vagueness is crucial.
Whether the word “torture” applies to various types of interrogation techniques,
especially including “waterboarding,” for example, has been a serious issue for
several years. Many former officials have claimed that these techniques did not
count as torture, but many others have disagreed.

So, because we are afraid of the consequences of the vague concept, we sometimes
get away with driving dangerously fast under bad circumstances, and we are
sometimes ticketed for driving over the posted limit when it is quite safe to do so.

Vagueness is often intentional, used as a means to avoid giving a clear, precise

answer. Politicians often resort to vague statements if they don’t want their
audience to know exactly where they stand. A vague answer to the question
“Do you love me?” may mean there’s trouble ahead in the relationship. Vagueness
occurs to varying degrees, and it is difficult to the point of impossibility to get rid
of it entirely. Fortunately, there is no need to get rid of it entirely. We live very
comfortably with a certain amount of vagueness in most of what we say. “Butte
City is a very small town” presents us with no problems under ordinary
circumstances, despite the vagueness of “very small town.” “

Problems arise with vagueness when there is too much of it, as in our direction
giving example above. Similarly, if a politician claims he will “raise taxes on the
wealthy,” what should we take that to mean? Unlike with the earlier example of
Darren’s rich parents, in this case it would be worthwhile to spend some effort
trying to pin down just what our speaker means by “wealthy,” since where the
borders fall here really do make a difference.
So, when is a level of vagueness acceptable and when is it not? It’s difficult to give
a general rule, aside from urging due care and common sense, but we might say
this: When a claim is not too vague to convey appropriately useful information, its
level of vagueness is acceptable. For example, if the directions we’re given are not
too vague to help us find our destination,

Persuasive Writing
The primary aim of argumentation and the argumentative essay is to support a
position on an issue. Good writers, however, write for an audience and hope their
audience will find what they write persuasive. If you are writing for an audience of
people who think critically, it is helpful to adhere to these principles:
1. Confine your discussion of an opponent’s point of view to issues rather
than personal considerations.
2. When rebutting an opposing viewpoint, avoid being strident or insulting.
Don’t call opposing arguments absurd or ridiculous.
3. If an opponent’s argument is good, concede that it is good.
4. If space or time is limited, be sure to concentrate on the most important
considerations. Don’t become obsessive about refuting every last criticism
of your position.
5. Present your strongest arguments first.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make a persuasive case for your position.
However, in this book, we place more emphasis on making and recognizing good
arguments than on simply devising effective techniques of persuasion. Some
people can be persuaded by poor arguments and doubtful claims, and an
argumentative essay can be effective as a piece of propaganda even when it is a
rational and critical failure. One of the most difficult things you are called upon to
do as a critical thinker is to construct and evaluate claims and arguments
independently of their power to win a following. The Remainder of this book—
after a section on writing and diversity—is devoted to this task.

Writing in a Diverse Society

In closing, it seems appropriate to mention how important it is to avoid writing
in a manner that reinforces questionable assumptions and attitudes about people’s
gender, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation, physical ability or
disability, or other characteristics. This isn’t just a matter of ethics; it is a matter of
clarity and good sense. Careless word choices relative to such characteristics not
only are imprecise and inaccurate but also may be viewed as biased even if they
were not intended to be, and thus they may diminish the writer’s credibility.
Worse, using sexist or racist language may distort the writer’s own perspective and
keep him or her from viewing social issues clearly and objectively.

But language isn’t entirely a matter of ethics. We are a society that aspires to be
just, a society that strives not to withhold its benefit to from individuals on the
basis of their ethnic or racial background, skin color, religion, gender, or disability.
As a people, we try to end practices and change or remove institutions that are
unjustly discriminatory. Some of these unfair practices and institutions are,
unfortunately, embedded in our language.
Some common ways of speaking and writing, for example, assume that “normal”
people are all white males. It is still not uncommon, for instance, to mention a
person’s race, gender, or ethnic background if the person is not a white male, and
not to do so if the person is. Of course, it may be relevant to whatever you are
writing about to state that this particular individual is a male of Irish descent, or
whatever; if so, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so.

Some language practices are particularly unfair to women. Imagine a conversation

among three people, you are one of them. Imagine that the other two talk only to
each other. When you speak, they listen politely; but when you are finished, they
continue as though you had never spoken. Even though what you say is true and
relevant to the discussion, the other two proceed as though you were invisible.
Because you are not being taken seriously, you are at a considerable disadvantage.
You have reason to be unhappy.

In an analogous way, women have been far less visible in language than men and
have thus been at a disadvantage. Another word for the human race is not
“woman,” but “man” or “mankind.” The generic human has often been referred to
as “he.” How do you run a project? You man it. Who supervises? The department
or runs the meeting? The chair man. Who heads the crew? The fore man. Picture a
research scientist to yourself. Got the picture? Is it a picture? of a woman? No?
That’s because the standard picture, or stereotype, of a research scientist is a
picture of a man. Or, read this sentence: “Research scientists often put their work
before their personal lives and neglect their husbands.” Were you surprised by the
last word? Again, the stereotypical picture of a research scientist is a picture of a
man.

A careful and precise writer finds little need to converse in the lazy language of
stereotypes, especially those that perpetuate prejudice. As long as the idea prevails
that the “normal” research scientist is a man, women who are or who wish to
become research scientists will tend to be thought of as out of place. So they must
carry an extra burden, the burden of showing that they are not out of place. That’s
unfair. If you unthinkingly always write, “The research scientist . . . he,” you are
perpetuating an image that places women at a disadvantage. Some research
scientists are men, and some are women. If you wish to make a claim about male
research scientists, do so. But if you wish to make a claim about research scientists
in general, don’t write as though they were all males.

A word, phrase, or sentence is said to be ambiguous when it has more than one
meaning. A word is ambiguous when it has more than one meaning and it isn’t
obvious which one is intended in a situation in which the word is used. It is
thus an attribute of any idea or statement whose intended meaning cannot be
definitively resolved.

Does “Paul cashed a check” mean that Paul gave somebody cash or that somebody
gave cash to him? It could mean either. “Jessica is renting her house” could mean
that she’s renting it to someone or from someone. Jennifer gets up from her desk
on Friday afternoon and says, “My work here is finished.” She might mean that she
has finished the account she was working on, or that her whole week’s work is
done and she’s leaving for the weekend or that she’s fed up with her job and is
leaving the company.

“I saw a man on a hill with a telescope.”

It seems like a simple statement, until you begin to unpack the many alternate
meanings:

• There is a man on a hill and I’m watching him with my telescope.

• There is a man on a hill, who I’m seeing, and he has a telescope.
• There is a man, and he is on a hill that also has a telescope on it.
• I’m on a hill, and I saw a man using a telescope.
• There is a man on a hill, and I’m seeing him with a telescope.
Types

Semantic Ambiguity
Syntactic Ambiguity
Grouping Ambiguity
Semantic ambiguity

A claim can be ambiguous in any of several ways. The most obvious way is
probably by containing an ambiguous word or phrase, which produces a case of
semantic ambiguity. Claims suffer from semantic ambiguity when they contain a
wording (or words) with multiple meanings. The most obvious way is probably by
containing an ambiguous word or phrase. Semantic ambiguity arises when a word
a concept has an inherently diffuse meaning based on widespread or informal
image.

Example: Aunt Delia never uses glasses it may mean aunt Delia always had good
eyes, but it also might mean that she also drank beer directly from the bottle.

A claim can be ambiguous in any of several ways. The most obvious way is
probably by containing an ambiguous word or phrase, which produces a case of
semantic ambiguity.

Syntactic ambiguity

Claims suffer from syntactic ambiguity when multiple possible meanings result
from grammar or sentence structure. It occurs when a claim is open to two or more
interpretations because of its structure. Syntactic ambiguity arises not from the
range of meaning of single words but from the sentence structure.

Example 1- Susan saw the farmer with binoculars.

Example 2- The chicken is ready to eat.

Example 3- To travel in Canada you’ll need a birth certificate or a driver’s license

and other photo id.
The classic example:

Superfluous hair remover

Can mean the same as “hair remover that is superfluous’, or ‘removal of hair that is
superfluous’. The ambiguity results from the lack of representation of scope in the
English sentence, since it is unclear if the noun ‘hair remover’ is modified by
‘superfluous’ in its specifier or if the adjective ‘superfluous hair’ is the specifier of
the noun ‘remover’. In current syntax, the phrase would be associated with two
different possible trees which grouped the terms appropriately.

There are a few main philosophical issues involved in ambiguity.

1. Validity

Many arguments look persuasive but fail on closer inspection on account of

structural and lexical ambiguity.

For example, consider:

• Tom owned a bat.

• Bats have wings.

• Tom owned something with wings.

The argument looks valid and the premises seem true, on at least one reading, but
the conclusion doesn’t follow.

2 . Legal interpretations

On the other hand, the fact about ambiguity can matter a great deal when it comes
to determining policy, extension of law etc. The law is sensitive to this and makes
certain division between ambiguities.

Linguistic ambiguity - can be in law because of the interpretation of written

argument and oral agreement is often paramount importance.

For example, a politician says that- “I oppose taxes which hinder economic
growth.” Some will think he opposes taxes in general because they hinder
economic growth. Others may think he opposes those taxes that he believes will
hinder economic growth

Grouping ambiguity - a kind of semantic ambiguity in which it is in unclear

whether a claim refers to a group of things taken individually or collectively.

Ex- lawn mowers create more air pollution than dirt biker , might say in defence
of his hobby and because it is ambiguous there is an interpretation under which it is
probably false. Taken collectively, lawn mower doubtless creates more pollution
because there are so many more of them. Individually we would bet it’s the dirt
bike that does more damage.

There are two venerable fallacies based on the grouping type of ambiguity.

Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division occurs when the attributes of whole.

{Opposite of fallacy of composition}

Example- Reserve bank of India is a “wealthy organisation” .therefore , Satish who

is an employee in that bank , is also a wealthy person.

Fallacy of composition

It occurs when the conclusion is drawn from the attributes of parts itself.

EXAMPLE- every book of Delhi Public Library is a good book. Therefore, Delhi
Book Library is a good library.

VAGUENESS
1)Vague have nothing to be specific, they invite the listener to share in the creation
of positive and negative judgement.
2) Vague is neutral.
3) Vague is a social statement.
4) Vagueness is getting bits and pieces of fact or details without getting the parts
that lead to an obvious conclusion.
AMBIGUITY
1) Ambiguity has more than one meaning out of the context and one meaning in
the context.
2) Ambiguity reflects the attitude of the speaker.
3) Ambiguity is a social construct.
4) Ambiguous offers an obvious notion or conclusion without having to get much
details at all.

Ambiguity: Uncertainty of meaning, often leading to disputes or to mistakes when

the same word or phrase has two or more distinct meanings, and the context does
not make clear which meaning is intended. 
Ambiguous terms have multiple meanings.
Eg. I tackled the thief with my pajamas on.
Whereas
Vagueness: The attribute of a term having "borderline cases“
 regarding which it cannot be determined whether the term should be applied to
those cases or not.
Vague terms have only one meaning.
Example. "Tall" is a vague concept.
Words are only vague indirectly, by virtue of having a sense that is vague
In contrast, an ambiguous word bears its ambiguity directly—
simply in virtue of having multiple meanings.
Definition

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term, a word, phrase, or other set

of symbols. For example definition of a dog is “Dog is a four-legged animal that is
often kept as a pet or used for hunting. “

Definitions can be classified into two large categories, 

Intentional definitions which try to give the essence of a term and extensional

definitions which proceed by listing the objects that a term describes.

• Intentional definition: In logic and mathematics, an intentional

definition gives the meaning of a term by specifying necessary and sufficient
conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is
equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order
 to be counted as a referent of the term. For example, an intentional definition
of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man". This definition is valid because
being an unmarried man is both a necessary condition and a sufficient
condition for being a bachelor: it is necessary because one cannot be a
bachelor without being an unmarried man, and it is sufficient because any
unmarried man is a bachelor.

• Extensional definition: An extensional definition of a concept or term

formulates its meaning by specifying its extension, that is, every object that
falls under the definition of the concept or term in question. For example, an
extensional definition of the term "nation of the world" might be given by
listing all of the nations of the world, or by giving some other means of
recognizing the members of the corresponding class. 

Based on uses or purpose of definition

• Ostensive definition: An ostensive definition conveys the meaning of a term

by pointing out examples. This type of definition is often used where the
term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be
understood (as with children and new speakers of a language) or because of
the nature of the term (such as colors or sensations). It is usually
accompanied with a gesture pointing out the object serving as an example,
and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by pointing"
Example: Ostensive definition specifies the meaning of an expression by
pointing to examples of things to which the expression applies (e.g., green is
the color of grass, limes, lily pads, and emeralds). 

• Analytic definition: An analytic definition is a description of the range of

reference of a lexical unit. This description is made up of a:

1) A generic term identifying the broad category to which it belongs, and

 2) Modifying word or phrase which specifies its obligatory components of
meaning, thus

-restricting it to include only the appropriate referents, and

-distinguishing it from similar senses and words.

Examples: 

 doctor—"a person licensed to practice medicine"

 eat—"to take into the body, through the mouth, something which may be
thought of as food"

Definitions serve various purposes, some of them are following: 

• Explains the actual meaning of the word: when we don’t know the meaning
of a word we look up its definition and the definition that is provided there is
called ‘lexical definition’. Lexical definitions give the single established
meaning of the term. For e.g.:
Necklace - an ornamental chain or string of beads, jewels, or links worn
round the neck.

• Explains a special meaning of a word in a given context and explain

invented words: Sometimes a word needs to take on a special meaning in a
given context and for this purpose we use simulative definitions. For e.g.: A
group of men may use word MBA for the meaning ‘married but available’
however the actual meaning of MBA that is used universally isn’t that.

• Reduces vagueness or generality or eliminates ambiguity: To serve this

purpose we use precising definitions, A precising definition might be
regarded as a combination of reportive and stipulative definition. The aim of
a precising definition is to make the meaning of a term more precise for
some purpose. For example, a bus company might want to give discounts to
old people. But simply declaring that old people can get discounts will lead
to many disputes since it is not clear how old should one be in order to be an
old person. So one might define "old person" to mean any person of age 65
or above. This is of course one among many possible definitions of "old".
 • Persuades: For this purpose, we use persuasive or rhetorical A persuasive
definition is any definition that attaches an emotive, positive or derogatory
meaning to a term where it has none. It isn’t clear that we should use them as
real definitions since they are not intended to provide either intended or
agreed upon meanings for terms for example, someone against abortion
might offer the definition of "abortion" as the murder of an innocent person
during pregnancy. This definition carries a negative connotation, as the term
"murder" suggests that abortion is wrongful killing, and it also assumes that
the aborted fetus is already a person. Such a definition is surely not
appropriate in a fair debate on the moral legitimacy of abortion, even though
it might be useful as a rhetorical tool.

To reduce vagueness or eliminate ambiguity, or when new or unfamiliar words are

brought into play, or familiar words in an unusual way, definitions are our best
tool.

These precising definitions begin with the lexical Definition of a term but then
propose to Sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. Here, the lexical
part must be correct and the should appropriately reduce the troublesome
Vagueness.