Re: KT boundry event
- From: SRNissen <soren.nissen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 14:42:33 +0200
John Harshman wrote:
UC wrote:>
>> John Harman wrote:
>>
>>> UC wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Harman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>UC wrote:
[Snip a lot of stuff irrelevant to my question]
I regard them as two sides of the same coin.Hey, look, you already thought of another purpose. Good work.What other purpose does it serve, then, besides identification andThe Linnaean nomenclature exists strictly for classification; it has noThat's quite wrong, but it also seems irrelevant to any point you may be
other purpose.
making.
classification?
You regard wrong.
O R'lyeh?
Why would we classify anything but to identify it later? How can we identify what isn't classified?
While I disagree with the general thrust of UC's argument, I'll have to agree that any system of classification will, by its very nature, be usable as a system of identification, and vice versa.
- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- References:
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: Augray
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: neverbetter
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: neverbetter
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: UC
- Re: KT boundry event
- From: John Harshman
- Re: KT boundry event
- Prev by Date: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Next by Date: Re: Three way race?
- Previous by thread: Re: KT boundry event
- Next by thread: Re: KT boundry event
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading