On 8/17/2011 7:04 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
> "incommensurable" is such a trendy weasel word that no one has
> a clear idea of what they or anyone else means when they use it. (01)
I agree. But I always find it useful to consult a good dictionary
to get an informal, but well-informed opinion about how people
ordinarily use a word. (02)
For 'incommensurable', the Merriam Webster Ninth Collegiate says (03)
> lacking a basis for comparison with respect to a quality
> normally subject to comparison. (04)
The words 'comparison' and 'quality' are terms that can be made
precise in many fields -- especially mathematics -- but they
are sufficiently broad that they can cover generalizations
to the kinds of issues we have been discussing. (05)
However, those terms can be generalized in so many different
ways that any use of the term 'incommensurable' should specify
more detail. For example, it could say something about what
kinds of qualifies are being considered and how they are
being compared. (06)
If Richard or anybody else wants to use the term 'incommensurable'
they should say what they are comparing, how they are doing the
comparisons, and what kinds of difficulties they have found. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|