[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proofs and people
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, J. Marie Hall wrote:
> peter said:
> > Rather than define "stupid" as "Radiohead and anything which resembles
> > it too closely", or whatever, why not come up with a more objective
> > definition -- one that has no need of Radiohead for a reference point?
> >
> > Once you've done that, it *may* turn out that Radiohead still matches
> > your definition of "stupid", and you may be able to convince people of
> > that, if you and they have already agreed on a definition of "stupid"
> > -- but first you have to demonstrate to them that you're not loading
> > the dice.
>
> i agree with you, but don't we still run into the same problem with
> reference points--even if they seem less loaded?
Not really. If we can all agree that people with purple hair are "stupid"
and it turns out that the guys in Radiohead have purple hair, then they
are "stupid", end of story. The definition of "stupid" meaning anything
with purple hair needs only two reference points: purple and hair.
That's a silly example, of course, but whatever definition of "stupid" we
*do* come up with, it could be similarly broad and nondescript.
> so we orient with reference points we can work with. aren't they all
> eventually problematic if you keep going deeper. it's like the kid who
> asks a "why" question and after each answer asks, "why?"
Sure, if you want to be *difficult* about it. :)
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: