ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 03/26/2012 11:01 AM: > Thus, rather than calling something "valid-in-context", why not include > the context in the thing, and then just call it "valid"?
Because that's difficult to do, as Dale's ongoing documentation of his actors indicates. Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a mailing list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They seemingly enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here ... probably not face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume the other has completely thought through the context in which they made their assertions is low. I.e. neither Doug nor Nick will assume the context is (adequately) included. (Indeed none of us are likely to assume that. That's one of the problems with e-mail and other online fora.) > It seems to me > that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the many > ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that. Yes, then we agree. But further, you can't get that nuance without either lots of text or densely packed terminology. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
