Verdict Exclusion, Higher-Order Vagueness, Cross-Order Vagueness and Borderlineness: Reflections on Footnote 41 of Crispin Wright’s ‘On Being in a Quandary’

The paper explores an argument offered by C. Wright against the “verdict-exclusion” view (according to which we can knowledgeably rule out that, in the presence of a borderline case of Fness, that case is either feasibly knowably F or feasibly knowably \({\sim } F\) ). The view is shared by otherwise very different theories of vagueness, such as the “third-possibility” view (according to which an object’s being a borderline case of Fness is a state which is incompatible both with F’s applying to it and with \({\sim } F\) ’s applying to it) and “pessimistic classical epistemicism” (according to which not only we are not in a position to rule out the possibility that, after all, F does apply to the case in question nor the possibility that, after all, \({\sim } F\) does apply to it, we also know that either F or \({\sim } F\) applies to it, and we just cannot know which). After presenting Wright’s original argument against the verdict-exclusion view and proposing a strengthening thereof, the paper considers and eventually rejects a restriction of the verdict-exclusion view, restriction which could be proposed in order to block the argument against it. The paper then identifies a first fundamental problem with the argument, concerning a slide from something’s being a mere consequence to its being a full-blooded characterization. Further, the paper distinguishes two different kinds of vagueness other than first-order vagueness (higher-order vagueness proper and what will be called ‘cross-order vagueness’), and shows that the idea behind the argument against the verdict-exclusion view can be used to build an argument against the definiteness of instances of cross-order borderlineness in the first place, thereby making it clear both that the new argument actually undermines a crucial assumption of Wright’s argument against the verdict-exclusion view and that, anyway, the issue has nothing to do in particular with the verdict-exclusion view. The paper then inquires what the verdict-exclusion view should make of such a result, and argues that both third-possibility theorists and pessimistic classical epistemicists face the novel explanatory challenge of giving a principled answer to the question as to why they are not, after all, committed to the definiteness of some instances of cross-order borderlineness. The paper concludes by generalizing the challenge to all extant theories of vagueness and considering possible avenues of reply.