Abstract

In “semantic vagueness in Psychiatric Nosology,” Nicholas Tilmes offers a conditional claim for further consideration. The conditional is that “if psychiatric vagueness exists, there is reason to think that some cases of it are at least partially semantic.” From this, some conclusions worth investigating follow. In this brief commentary I will set out a question Tilmes introduces by, like him, drawing on a paper by Miriam Schoenfield, which also examines vagueness as semantic, epistemic or ontic though she draws a contrasting conclusion for her subject matter: moral judgment. Highlighting a supposed contrast between semantic and ontic vagueness will also highlight an issue for...