Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.

From: paul c <>
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" <> wrote in message
>>> 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

Original text of this message