Walt wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170782610.288107.62570_at_a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Feb 6, 8:34 am, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Formal systems don't have elephants in them.
>>>
>>>I didn't get you irony. You didn't get my metaphor.
>>
>>I understood you just fine. Your "metaphor" indicated
>>you don't understand the difference between the natural
>>world and the abstract world. Many other of your
>>posts have indicated the same thing.
>>
>>
>>>One can empirically verify that the hierarchal model's method becomes
>>>unsystematic when representing things with multiple parents.
>>
>>That's not empiricism.
>
> I disagree. One *could* verify such an assertion empirically. One could
> also verify such an assertion abstractly, without recourse to empiricism.
> One might call this a "proof in theory". OK, my disgreement might just be a
> quibble.
What is the measure of 'systematic' ? How do we instrument our hierarchy
to measure it?
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 16:26:10 CST
