Thanks for this, Paul. We certainly do seem to use many terms, but without agreed definitions. It reminds me of a passage in Richard Feynman's book 'Surely you're joking Mr Feynman', where he is discussing with philosophers their meaning of the term 'an essential object'. He asked them if a brick was an essential object, but this was something that they could not agree upon. Good luck Andy
Thanks! Feynman also tells a story of his father's. "here are several names in foreign languages for the same bird. You know the names but know nothing of the bird itself." Not quite the same issue, but the various glossaries suit different purposes - often contradictory but usually not very helpful meanings. So I now think we need explanations, more than definitions. (Of course, my explanations may be subjective, but I'm trying to be more inclusive of the range of definitions).
Thanks for this, Paul.
We certainly do seem to use many terms, but without agreed definitions.
It reminds me of a passage in Richard Feynman's book 'Surely you're joking Mr Feynman', where he is discussing with philosophers their meaning of the term 'an essential object'. He asked them if a brick was an essential object, but this was something that they could not agree upon.
Good luck
Andy
Thanks!
Feynman also tells a story of his father's. "here are several names in foreign languages for the same bird. You know the names but know nothing of the bird itself." Not quite the same issue, but the various glossaries suit different purposes - often contradictory but usually not very helpful meanings. So I now think we need explanations, more than definitions. (Of course, my explanations may be subjective, but I'm trying to be more inclusive of the range of definitions).