Much of the literature on vagueness has taken for granted that semantic and epistemic approaches to vagueness are fundamentally at odds. If we can analyze borderline cases and the Sorites paradox in terms of degrees of truth, then we do not need an epistemic explanation. Conversely, if an epistemic explanation suffices, then there is no reason to depart from the familiar simplicity of classical bivalent semantics. This chapter questions this assumption, showing that there is an intelligible motivation for adopting a many-valued semantics, even if one accepts a form of epistemicism. The resulting hybrid view has advantages over both classical epistemicism and traditional many-valued approaches.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.