The aim of this paper is to introduce the philosophical concept of vagueness and use it to critique the explanatory scope of social ontology as developed by the Cambridge Social Ontology Group (CSOG), and scholars sympathetic to it. Specifically, we will refer to one of its core theories, the theory of social positioning, to formulate our critique. This theory proposes that human beings and artefacts occupy social positions within emerging social totalities by virtue of receiving community accepted, interdependent, rights and obligations. Vagueness, here, is to be understood as a matter of indeterminacy in borderline cases that pose non-trivial limitations to social positioning. By this we mean to say that there are instances in social ontological theorising that exclude themselves from proper inquiry due to vague terms found in natural languages. As a consequence of these vague terms, theories in social ontology formulated in such languages face limitations when striving for precisification and accuracy of theories. We further argue that these limitations cannot be overcome, but introduce four theories, namely supervaluationsim, epistemicism, truth degree theories and contextualism, which will allow interested readers to understand why these limitations are present. Finally, we consider the controversial theory of ontic vagueness and outline the implications for social ontology.

中文翻译：

---

模糊性和社会本体论：抗查询边界案例对社会本体论理论的影响

本文旨在引入模糊性这一哲学概念，并以此批判剑桥社会本体论小组（CSOG）提出的社会本体论的解释范围，以及对此表示同情的学者。具体而言，我们将参考其核心理论之一，即社会定位理论来形成我们的批判。该理论提出，人类和人工制品通过接受社区接受的、相互依存的权利和义务，在新兴的社会整体中占据社会地位。在这里，模糊性被理解为在对社会定位造成重大限制的边缘情况下的不确定性问题。我们的意思是说，由于在自然语言中发现的模糊术语，社会本体论理论中有一些实例将自己排除在适当的调查之外。由于这些模糊的术语，用这些语言表述的社会本体论理论在力求理论的精确性和准确性时面临着局限性。我们进一步认为这些限制是无法克服的，而是介绍了四种理论，即超评价理论、认识论、真实度理论和语境主义，这将使有兴趣的读者理解为什么会出现这些限制。最后，我们考虑了有争议的本体模糊性理论，并概述了对社会本体论的影响。真实度理论和语境主义，这将使感兴趣的读者理解为什么会出现这些限制。最后，我们考虑了有争议的本体模糊性理论，并概述了对社会本体论的影响。真实度理论和语境主义，这将使感兴趣的读者理解为什么会出现这些限制。最后，我们考虑了有争议的本体模糊性理论，并概述了对社会本体论的影响。