3.2: Being Too Vague

In the statement "Jane Austen is a poor person," the term poor is ambiguous. The ambiguity can be removed by expanding the context of the statement and saying, "Jane Austen is a poor person to choose for such a complicated job." Suppose, instead, the ambiguity is removed by saying, "Jane Austen is a financially poor person." Now the ambiguity is gone, but the vagueness remains. Noticing the vagueness, you might well ask, " How financially poor?" You recognize that financial poverty is a matter of degree. When there is a matter of degree about whether something is an x, then the word x is said to be vague in that context.

When somebody uses the word bald, it can be reasonable to ask about the degree of baldness by saying, "Just how bald do you mean?" But when someone uses the word seven it would not be reasonable to ask, "Just how seven do you mean?" Nor would it make sense to ask, "Seven to what degree?" Seven is one of those rare words that is not vague.

Imagine a man having just enough hair that you have a tough time telling whether he is bald. Perhaps he is on the fuzzy borderline between bald and balding. You may want to say that he is "bald, by and large" or perhaps that he is "not exactly bald but surely doesn't have much hair." In the first case you are saying he is bald, but in the second case you are saying he is not bald. The existence of this borderline case of being bald is what makes the word bald vague. Vagueness is fuzziness of meaning. The line between bald and not bald is not sharp; it is fuzzy.

Definition An expression x is vague when it is imprecise either because there are borderline cases of being an x; or because there are degrees of being an x.

Fuzzy phrases are vague, but fuzzy heads are not. Language and thought can be vague; the physical world cannot be.

Judges often tear their hair out trying to deal with fuzzy language. For examples, they must decide what counts as "stealing," and borderline cases present a problem. Suppose a prosecutor charges a delivery person with stealing, because she used snow from a homeowner's yard to resupply the ice in her van's ice chest. This taking of snow is a borderline example of "stealing," but the judge has to make a decision; either she is innocent, or she is not. The judge cannot say she is "sort of innocent." If the judge of an appellate court decides that the action is not stealing, that very decision helps redefine the term stealing for future cases. It sets a precedent.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Following are four choices for completing the sentence. They vary in their vagueness. Rank them, beginning with the least vague (that is, the most precise).

I'll meet you ______________________

a. outside Sears' north entrance next to where the Salvation Army lady usually stands.
b. nearby.
c. at the north entrance of the Sears store.
d. at Sears.

Answer

The appropriate order is (a) (c) (d) (b).

To find language that is free of ambiguity and vagueness, look to the terminology of mathematics, computer programming, and symbolic logic. Computers cannot easily tolerate imprecision; we have to be precise about everything when we program a computer. In ordinary conversations with human beings we don't need to be as precise. Saying "I'll probably go to see that film with you soon” is good enough for a human. Saying "The probability is 72 percent that I'll go to the film with you within the next forty-two to forty-six hours" would be strange because it is too precise. It's a social convention that we usually don't go to the trouble of being precise in a conversation unless we need to be.

Scientists do need to be precise. They speak of "volt," not "jolt." They use "species" instead of "kind of critter." Scientists define their terms more precisely than the rest of us do, and this precision is one key to their success. Our ordinary word bug is vague and not as useful in accurately describing our world as are the scientific words insect and arachnid, which have fairly sharp definitions. For example, a creature must have six legs to be an insect and eight to be an arachnid. That’s what distinguishes mosquitos from spiders. Count the legs on a cockroach sometime and you’ll know which way to classify it. The term “bug” has many more borderline cases than “insect” and “arachnid.” Retaining the familiar but vague term bug in communications among biologists would be an obstacle to the growth of the science.

Precision is helpful not only in scientific classification but also with scientific measurement. If scientists measured feet using a notion of feet that varied with each scientist's own foot, can you imagine the difficulties?

But vagueness has its advantages. If you make a vague claim, it is harder to show it is incorrect than if you make a precise claim. The disadvantage is that the vaguer claim may be less useful than the precise one. Here is an example of how one employer used vagueness for an advantage: The employer’s ad for a new employee said new employees can make up to $40 an hour. The phrase “up to” is a so-called “weasel word” that protects the employer who has never given anyone over the minimum wage. If you weaken a claim by inserting a term that makes the claim harder to criticize, then you’ve inserted a so-called weasel word or weasler.

Critical thinkers are sensitive to the fact that the strength of an argument can vary with the vagueness of its ingredients. For example, in the following situation which would be the safest conclusion, and thus produce the strongest argument? When you know that 100 Ohio voters were sampled and 70 of them said they’d be voting for the Republican candidate, would it be safest to conclude that over 65% of Ohio voters will vote for the Republican candidate or instead to conclude that most Ohio voters will vote for the Republican candidate? Drawing the vaguer conclusion makes for the strongest argument.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

When does a near object become a far object?

Answer

Check paragraph below

The difference between near and far is vague. That is, it is a matter of degree, and there are borderline cases. It is helpful to think of x being near or far from y relative to z. Now it is easier to see that in addition to being vague the question depends on what the y and z are. You might have mentioned that if we are talking about distance, then far things have more distance than near things. Whether something x is near or far depends on several factors such as the x: Which object you are talking about? [A nearby star is farther away than a far-away restaurant across town]. It depends also on y: x is near or far from what thing y? [Near you or near something else? Your right hand is near you but not near the South Pole]. You cannot always assume the z is you. For example, what if the question were being asked in a context in which z is the planet Mercury, and you wanted to know whether Neptune is near or far from Saturn compared to Mercury. So, if you answer with "I can tell if it is near or far by measuring its distance from me," then the answer wouldn't be helpful. Suppose you were to learn that Neptune is 4.4 billion kilometers away from you. What would that tell you about whether Neptune is near or far from Saturn compared to Mercury? Nothing. Finally, the answer depends on the speaker's interests [Philadelphia is near New York City if you are interested in drawing a map of the U.S., but it is far from New York City if you are interested in walking there on your lunch break from your office in downtown Philadelphia]. Hopefully your answer was not just that big objects are closer than small objects. Consider a big elephant only two feet away from you. It is still not close compared to the distance your shirt is from you.