All, Speaking of standards, here's a link to several renderings of the standard advice pragmatic thinkers give anyone who desires to clarify her or his concept of any object of discussion or thought.
Seven Ways of Looking at a Pragmatic Maxim https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ I think my favorite version is the deuteronymous one. | Consider what effects that might _conceivably_ | have practical bearings you _conceive_ the | objects of your _conception_ to have. Then, | your _conception_ of those effects is the | whole of your _conception_ of the object. I think it works as well to clarify one's concept of a concept. Regards, Jon inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache On 3/15/2021 12:35 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > The word 'concept' is an English word, which has > multiple rather vague meanings. It is a serious > mistake for ISO or anybody else to attempt to > standardize its meaning. > But it is possible to standardize certain words within > a particular theory. For example, the ISO standard for > Common Logic defines a concept in a conceptual graph to > be a node with a precisely defined syntax and semantics. > But that definition is only meaningful within that very > specialized context. > > John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
