Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:31:09 GMT
Message-ID: <Nruli.109012$NV3.11243_at_pd7urf2no>
>
>
> I guess that depends how they do it. One cannot have a conversation where
> the participants can equivocate (as we see here time and time and time
> again). The domain of discourse has to be firmly established and within it
> there can be only one definition of any term. Insisting on that kind of
> discipline isn't funamentalism in my book, it's just a prerequisite to
> communication.
>
> On the other hand if your Dumpty Humpties try to insist the same term has to
> mean the same thing in all realms of discourse they'd clearly be insane,
> stupid, or trolling. And that's not fundamentalism either.
>
> (Hmm. Perhaps I just argued that there is no such thing as a
> fundamentalist. That'd be an interesting claim...)
>
> Roy
>
>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:31:09 GMT
Message-ID: <Nruli.109012$NV3.11243_at_pd7urf2no>
Roy Hann wrote:
> "Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184253165.108058.298260_at_n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>>That is certainly a fact, but I'm not sure if I'm not more worried by >>the Dumpty Humpties, i.e., those that will insist that there is only >>one true meaning of a word and every attempt to redefine it is no less >>than sacrilege. My guess is that it is the fundamentalists that we >>need to worry about more.
>
>
> I guess that depends how they do it. One cannot have a conversation where
> the participants can equivocate (as we see here time and time and time
> again). The domain of discourse has to be firmly established and within it
> there can be only one definition of any term. Insisting on that kind of
> discipline isn't funamentalism in my book, it's just a prerequisite to
> communication.
>
> On the other hand if your Dumpty Humpties try to insist the same term has to
> mean the same thing in all realms of discourse they'd clearly be insane,
> stupid, or trolling. And that's not fundamentalism either.
>
> (Hmm. Perhaps I just argued that there is no such thing as a
> fundamentalist. That'd be an interesting claim...)
>
> Roy
>
>
No argument with either comment but heh, heh, it is the literalists (in various fields) that scare me when they are mistaken for fundamentalists, sometimes giving the latter a bad name. I wonder if any important idea is possible without some amount of illiteracy.
p Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 20:31:09 CEST