@Meaningness https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/wait-so-how-much-of-the-ocean-is-fished-again/569782/?utm_source=feed … puts me in mind of the discussion about ontology and measurement and is an interesting practical example. "What percentage of ocean is fished?" is very like "what is the mass of a cloud?" in that the answer varies wildly based on definition
-
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @DRMacIver
Relevant Feynman quote:pic.twitter.com/mPb2fHchf3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
So I've been thinking about this a bit more and despite making the same point myself I don't think I like this argument because it feels too much like pedantry. The claim is true but not actually very useful for practical reasoning
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver @Meaningness
Like I think it's important to understand this in some cases, but almost all of the time the useful model to adopt is still going to be chair as single discrete object
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver @Meaningness
Change in emphasis: usefulness is always for a particular job-to-be-done. You start out with a job-to-do, and use ontologies that help get the job done. In common speech, the default ontology serves the most common job the conversants face, until context shows otherwise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.