{"id":6730,"date":"2021-11-27T12:29:31","date_gmt":"2021-11-27T11:29:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=6730"},"modified":"2025-05-05T14:55:27","modified_gmt":"2025-05-05T12:55:27","slug":"vague-general-fuzzy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/vague-general-fuzzy\/","title":{"rendered":"Vague \u2013\u00a0General \u2013\u00a0Fuzzy"},"content":{"rendered":"

VAGUE – GENERAL – FUZZY<\/span><\/h1>\n

The adjective vague<\/em> qualifies the meaning conveyed by a term, a sentence, or an entire discourse.
\nVague<\/em> is opposed to clear, definite, explicit, specific<\/em> (MW). The standard orientation of vague is negative, while the orientation of each of its antonyms is positive.<\/p>\n

Intens<\/em>ion [1]\/Extens<\/span>ion
\n<\/strong>The intension<\/strong> of a term corresponds to its meaning, see definition. The extension<\/strong> of a term is the set of things or cases (the zones of the world) to which this term can refer,<\/span> <\/span>
\nIntension and extension vary in opposite directions. As the intension decreases (the definition is generalized), the extension increases, i.e. more cases are covered. There is a loss of precision and a gain of generalization.<\/strong>
\nConversely, as the intention narrows (the definition becomes more precise), the extension decreases, i.e. fewer cases are covered. There is a gain in precision and a loss in generalization.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. General Term – Generic term – Covering term – Collective term<\/span><\/h2>\n

General, generality, generalization<\/strong><\/span><\/em>
\nGeneral <\/em>is in contrast to specific<\/em>, individual<\/em>.
\n<\/em>General terms<\/em> have a broader intension<\/em>\/narrower extension<\/em> than specific terms<\/em>.
\nHypernyms (bird)<\/em> are less specific\/more general than their subordinate<\/em> terms (sparrow<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Generalization<\/em> is ambivalent<\/strong><\/span>. It is considered a positive step<\/strong> when it shows that a concept, a theory, a method… applies to new cases, different from those originally considered. Its scope is broader than expected; its claims are not ad hoc<\/em>, that is limited to a few original cases and saying nothing beyond their particulars. The potential for generalization shows that the method is fruitful.
\nBut an extended concept is more susceptible to refutation than a restricted one. Overgeneralization<\/em> <\/strong>occurs when the extension fails, for two reasons:
\n\u2014\u00a0 The new cases are clearly outside of the scope of the original claim; the theory has nothing to say about them.
\n\u2014 The new definition says nothing but trivialities about the new entities or new facts that it claims to cover.<\/p>\n

A general term is not<\/strong> a collective term<\/strong>. Nouns like set, heap, group, herd, team, collection<\/em>… are collective terms. In the singular, they refer to a set of objects or individuals taken as a relatively stable whole; in the plural, they refer to several different sets of that kind. They have no upper limit, see sorite<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Generic Terms<\/em><\/strong> <\/span>
\nStrictly speaking, generic terms function in classification<\/a>s. They are general words that designate a genus<\/strong> that includes several species,<\/strong> the species being designated by more specific<\/strong> terms<\/em>, that add specific distinguishing<\/strong> characteristics to their generic<\/strong> characteristics. This \u00ab\u00a0generic + specific\u00a0\u00bb conjunction characterizes the individuals to which the generic term may refer.<\/p>\n

Covering<\/strong><\/em> Terms<\/em><\/strong>, (Umbrella<\/strong><\/em> Terms<\/em>)
\n<\/strong><\/span>Covering (cover)<\/em> terms<\/em>, or umbrella<\/em> terms<\/em> are general terms whose meaning encompasses the common characteristics of several other terms. The umbrella term may be used in order to focus on the commonalities of the covered terms, as a topical word referring to more specialized concepts. An umbrella term<\/em> may refer to a list of items etc.
\nThe relationships between generic and specific terms are governed by the strict genus and species organization. The relationship between covering \/ covered <\/em>terms, and the links and oppositions terms covered by the same covering term<\/em>, depends on the area under consideration:<\/p>\n

Emotion<\/em> is a cover term for joy, fear, hate, love, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cardiovascular disease<\/em> is an umbrella term for a number of health problems involving the heart and\/or blood vessels [2]<\/a>, including<\/a><\/span> myocardial infarction \u2013 cerebrovascular accident \u2013 atherosclerosis \u2013 angina pectoris \u2013 heart failure \u2013 cardiac arrhythmia \u2013 hypertension.<\/span><\/p>\n

The binary anatomical categorization of male\/female genders and sexualities is replaced by the seven self-identified orientations, whose acronym LGBTQIA+ serves as an umbrella term<\/em> for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and more<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A cover term is not<\/strong> a vague or ambiguous term. <\/strong>The information it conveys applies to a large number of entities or to a variety of cases. For example, the word accident<\/em> is an umbrella term that refers to a variety of situations: traffic accident, work accident, domestic accident; medical accident, and so on. Nevertheless, \u201cIt was an accident<\/em>\u201d is precise and valuable as the first piece of information available. Precisions will come later, when needed.
\nAs an excluder, \u201cIt was an accident<\/em>\u201d is perfectly precise, because it excludes \u201cIt was a crime<\/em>.
\nA cover term can only be considered inadequate<\/em> with respect to the relevance principle organizing the current conversation, for example, if it only says what everyone knows.<\/p>\n

2. Vague<\/em> vs. Precise<\/em> vs. Relevant<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Generalities<\/em> are said to be vague,<\/em> irrelevant<\/em>, when they do not contribute to the specific task at hand. They simply allow the speaker to evade the common task, or to take a noncommittal stance on the issue.
\nInformation can be said to be fuzzy, vague<\/em>, or on the contrary precise<\/em>. According to Grice’s Quantity Principle<\/em>, the precision of information is relative to the conversation it keeps alive. this principle requires that just the right amount of information be provided, no more and no less, see cooperation<\/a> principle<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Three friends sitting at a sidewalk cafe are looking at a nice car driving by:<\/em><\/span>
\nS1: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How much could such a nice car cost?<\/span>
\nS2: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 More than 100,000 Euros, I think.<\/span>
\nS3: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 158,225 Euros before tax, plus options.<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer S2 is neither unclear nor vague but sufficient. It gives an order of magnitude that is perfectly appropriate for a free-flowing conversation, to which it gives it a clear orientation, \u00ab\u00a0You still have to earn some money to have a car like that!<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.
\nS3 is an expert’s answer, <\/span>absolutely precise, but the degree of precision is not required by the preceding conversation.<\/p>\n

The conversation may be about the exact price of this car:<\/p>\n

A buyer writing a check to a seller:<\/em>
\nS1:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So, finally how much?
\nS2: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 About 150,000 Euros.
\nS3:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 158,225 Euros.<\/p>\n

S2’s answer is now too vague, in the sense of \u00ab\u00a0insufficient\u00a0\u00bb, not adapted to the conversation. It does not give the buyer the information he is looking for: the exact amount he will pay. S3<\/strong> answers S1<\/strong>‘s question in full.<\/p>\n

The vagueness\/exactness of an intervention depends on the circumstances of the conversation and on the action developed by the participants.<\/p>\n

3. Fuzziness as a Zone of Discussion<\/span><\/h2>\n

3.1 The fuzziness of Intercategorical Boundaries<\/span><\/h3>\n

Belonging to a category can be defined in terms of reference to a set of entities that typically belong to the category. One must then distinguish, at the periphery of the clear zone that gathers the prototypical entities of the category, an increasingly blurred zone occupied by borderline objects, that belong less and less to this category, and more and more to another.
\nCategorization is influenced by context:<\/p>\n

A hammock certainly qualifies as a kind of bed; a towel not so much, but less clearly when it is part of the pool equipment, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

The arguments a pari<\/u><\/em><\/a>,<\/em>, from the opposite<\/u><\/a><\/em> play with the phenomena of continuity \/ discontinuity of the categories, privileging the attachment of a being to this or that category. This border zone is a zone of discussion.<\/p>\n

3.2 Uncertainty as a Subjective-Deliberative Zone<\/span><\/h2>\n

Peirce (1902) defines the word vague<\/em> in in terms of the variations in the judgments of speakers.<\/p>\n

Vague<\/em> (in logic) [Latin vagus<\/em>, rambling, indefinite]: Ger. unbestimmt<\/em>; Fr. vague<\/em>; Ital. vago. Indeterminate in intention.<\/span>
\nA proposition is vague when there are states of things concerning which it is intrinsically uncertain whether, had they been contemplated by the speaker, he would have regarded them as excluded or allowed by the proposition. By intrinsically uncertain we mean not uncertain in consequence of any ignorance of the interpreter, but because the speaker’s habits of language were indeterminate; so that one day he would regard the proposition as excluding, another as admitting, those states of things. Yet this must be understood to have reference to what might be deduced from a perfect knowledge of his state of mind; for it is precisely because these questions never did, or did not frequently, present themselves that his habit remained indeterminate.<\/span><\/p>\n

Peirce sees vagueness as a problem in individual psychology. The wandering of judgments is related to the fact that situations of vagueness are \u00ab\u00a0infrequent\u00a0\u00bb, which is debatable.<\/p>\n

Fuzzy logic<\/strong> formalizes the notion of fuzziness as a boundary zone where two categories merge. For example, on the temperature scale, the zone \u00ab\u00a0the weather is nice<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb overlaps the zones \u00ab\u00a0it is cold\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> and \u00ab\u00a0it is hot<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Figure (adapted from Quiroga Aranibar, 1994, p. 9) [3]\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Unanimity of judgment:<\/td>\n1: cold \u2014 3: nice \u2014 5: hot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Discussion:<\/td>\n2: cold \/ nice \u2014 4: nice \/ hot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Within the zone corresponding to the lexemes cold<\/em> and hot<\/em>, the intensifier very<\/em> defines two argumentative subzones, cold<\/em> \/ very cold<\/em> and hot<\/em> \/ very hot<\/em> to which the same representation applies.<\/p>\n

The situation can be described not as a variation in individual judgments but as a variation in interindividual judgments. Even if individual judgments were more stable, fuzzy zones would be created because of different individual sensitivities to cold and hot. Fuzzy zones can be defined as controversial zones. Such variations can lead to discussions, not necessarily pointless ones, about the weather. Fuzzy areas are open to discussion.<\/p>\n

\n[1] Intens<\/span>ion, or the conceptual content of a word, should not be confused with intenti<\/span>on, which is synonymous with purpose
\n[2]<\/a> https:\/\/www.pro-activ.com\/en-gb\/heart-and-cholesterol\/heart-health\/what-is-cardiovascular-disease
\n[3] Quiroga Aranibar, Luis Alfonso, 1994. Learning Fuzzy Logic from Examples<\/em>. Doctoral Thesis, Ohio University.
\nhttps:\/\/etd.ohiolink.edu\/apexprod\/rws_etd\/send_file\/send?accession=ohiou1176495652&disposition=inline
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

VAGUE – GENERAL – FUZZY The adjective vague qualifies the meaning conveyed by a term, a sentence, or an entire discourse. Vague is opposed to clear, definite, explicit, specific (MW). The standard orientation of vague is negative, while the orientation of each of its antonyms is positive. Intension [1]\/Extension The intension of a term corresponds […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6730"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6730\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6740,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6730\/revisions\/6740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}