Geoff wrote:
"I just don't see how a methodology which is supposedly value-free
can
pronounce on the value of artifacts.
A phrase to remember, thanks, cheerskep.
mando
On Nov 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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)
