Geoff wrote: > "I just don't see how a methodology which is supposedly value-free can > pronounce on the value of artifacts." > Too briefly: The phrase "the value" is communication quicksand, both because of 'the' and because of 'value'. The word/notion "value" is what I'll call "soft" as opposed to "hard" -- i.e. it doesn't come attached to current or potential sense data. "Eiffel Tower" and "taste of vanilla" are hard phrases. Soft, derivative phrases aren't useful without serviceably precise descriptions of the notions behind them.
The definite article 'the' both reifies and implies there is solely a single "referent". But readers will claim there are many different kinds of "value". This prompts Chris to an oblique half-response: "Some artifacts serve as better scientific evidence than others -- that's how." Geoff's response to that aims to harden the phrase a bit, but the exchange is unlikely to escape the quicksand. ************** Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10000 0075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/downloa d.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
