PROMOTING THE SORITES PARADOX TO A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL

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.

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;
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. 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’, having 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’ for 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 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
chances of being, it is only `fair’ that the speaker/writer gives their mental
paradigms away somehow;

1
4) A well-posed problem in Science must be objective, clear, and never hold
enthymemes, 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’ 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 to be a scientific one, passive of any logical analysis, that is,
analysis via logical systems which may be inserted in the computers, or fully
mechanicized.