Imagination, Stipulation and Vagueness

Humans are better at logic than at philosophy.1 When philosophical considerations leads someone to propose a revision of basic logic, the philosophy is more likely to be at fault than the logic. Although there is no general methodological ban on such a revision, just as there is no general methodological ban on a philosophically motivated revision of basic physics, any particular revisionary proposal must be greeted with some scepticism. Even before we have found the fault in the philosophical argument, we should think it likely that there is one -which is not to say that we need not bother to look for it.2 The epistemic view of vagueness is based on the use of classical logic in vague languages, together with disquotational principles for truth and falsity. The latter may be taken as these schemata (where names of sentences replace 's'):