Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:32:29 GMT
Message-ID: <1tuli.108337$xq1.97870_at_pd7urf1no>
>> "Jan Hidders" <hidders_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184253165.108058.298260_at_n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> That is certainly a fact, but I'm not sure if I'm not more worried by
>>> the Dumpty Humpties, i.e., those that will insist that there is only
>>> one true meaning of a word and every attempt to redefine it is no less
>>> than sacrilege. My guess is that it is the fundamentalists that we
>>> need to worry about more.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess that depends how they do it. One cannot have a conversation
>> where the participants can equivocate (as we see here time and time
>> and time again). The domain of discourse has to be firmly established
>> and within it there can be only one definition of any term. Insisting
>> on that kind of discipline isn't funamentalism in my book, it's just a
>> prerequisite to communication.
>>
>> On the other hand if your Dumpty Humpties try to insist the same term
>> has to mean the same thing in all realms of discourse they'd clearly
>> be insane, stupid, or trolling. And that's not fundamentalism either.
>>
>> (Hmm. Perhaps I just argued that there is no such thing as a
>> fundamentalist. That'd be an interesting claim...)
>>
>> Roy
>>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:32:29 GMT
Message-ID: <1tuli.108337$xq1.97870_at_pd7urf1no>
paul c wrote:
> 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
correction - "any important idea ... in the beginning". Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 20:32:29 CEST