[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:28:33 -0500
Message-id: <1582E93A-E10F-4B97-A0D4-A031BF07EE68@xxxxxxxx>
On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Cory Casanave wrote:
>> If I were to have a category "Pretty Woman", it seems clear that the set 
>described by this category is subjective (for both the term "pretty" and 
> Seriously?
> Yes, I am surprised you would be surprised by this.
> I would be interested in your precise formalization for "Pretty"!    (01)

I wasn't disputing to the claim that "pretty" is subjective.    (02)

> 100 years ago "Woman" would also be considered easy to define - less so today 
>with sex change and chromosome analysis.  However, precise definitions are 
>possible but may not be universally agreed.    (03)

That a concept has fuzzy boundaries might make it difficult to find agreement 
on a precise definition, but it does not follow that the concept is 
*subjective*.  I might not be sure whether a large pamphlet is a book, but that 
doesn't mean that a book can be whatever my fancy dictates.    (04)

-chris    (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>