PROMOTING THE SORITES PARADOX TO A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL

I. M. R. Pinheiro1

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:

1) 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]);
2) 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;
3) 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
1
Po Box 12396, A’Beckett st, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3000. illmrpinheiro@gmail.com.

1
 chances of being, it is only `fair’ that the speaker/writer gives their mental
paradigms away somehow;
4) 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

2
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 it 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 of 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

3
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,

4
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.