Skip to main content
Log in

Margin for error semantics and signal perception

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A joint modelling of objective worlds and subjective perceptions within two-dimensional semantics eliminates the margin for error principle and solves the epistemic sorites paradox. Two objective knowledge modalities can be defined in two-dimensional frames accounting for subjective perceptions: “necessary knowledge” (NK) and “possible knowledge” (PK), the latter being better suited to the interpretation of knowledge utterances. Two-dimensional semantics can in some cases be reduced to one-dimensional ones, by defining accessibility relations between objective worlds that reflect subjective perceptions: NK and PK are respectively equivalent to \({\square \square }\) and \({\lozenge \square }\) in some one-dimensional frame, and to \({\square }\) and another modality in some other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett, B. (1998). Modal semantics for knowledge bases dealing with vague concepts. In A. G. Cohn, L. Schubert, & S. Shapiro (Eds.), Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: Proceedings of the 6th international conference (KR-98) (pp. 234–244). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.

  • Bonnay D., Egré P. (2009) Inexact knowledge with introspection. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(2): 179–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutant, J. (2007). Inexact knowledge, margin-for-error and positive introspection. In D. Samet (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK XI) (pp. 118–124). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain-la-Neuve.

  • Egré P., Bonnay D. (2010) Vagueness, uncertainty and degrees of clarity. Synthese 174(1): 47–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. (2004). Intransitivity and vagueness. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, pp. 121–129.

  • Mott P. (1998) Margins for error and the sorites paradox. The Philosophical Quarterly 48(193): 494–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (1994) Vagueness. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (2000a) Margins for error: A reply. The Philosophical Quarterly 50(198): 76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (2000b) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Spector.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spector, D. Margin for error semantics and signal perception. Synthese 190, 3247–3263 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0155-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0155-2

Keywords

Navigation