[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


You observed:
<On philidor's comment that we should try to make formal taxonomy match
"common knowledge" (whatever that is) -- there are already hundreds of
systems in regular usage which have the kind of fuzziness, intuitive
definitions, and reliance on human perception which philidor seems to want.
They're called human languages!>

I admit that when I refer to the 'vernacular' I mean the use of people's
actual language (and observations), as opposed to using the language they
didn't know (in the Medieval period Latin, for instance) in order to reserve
important knowledge to their betters.
That's not the same thing as saying that the definition of, say, birds
(Aves, in Latin) must be characterized by 'fuzziness, intuitive definitions,
and reliance on human perception...'  Simplicity can be accurate.