On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the
question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying
elephants at all.
Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?
But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point:
'elephant' is a category we make up.
Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though,
I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.
Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying
elephant?
I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core
issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to
be.
Jason
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
