[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dan Connolly wrote: > Either > (a) the definitions you have in mind are > ultimately connected to the physical world, > about which there are no logical necessities/certainties; Just so. > the best tools we have for defining such terms > are very-repeatable experiments. Terms are not defined by experiment. I define "gold" as "one or more atoms of the element whose atomic number is 79"; determining whether some particular object is or is not gold depends on experiment; but knowing what gold is, does not. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|

Cart



