Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Speciation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MarcusHill" data-source="post: 48303234" data-attributes="member: 187047"><p>A "different" kind of a "general" kind? There are layers of kinds? That's a new one on me. Before we get on to that, here's a request I've made here on occasion, never to any success.</p><p> </p><p><u>Define what you mean by "kind".</u></p><p> </p><p>I want to be clear about what I mean by "define". You need to provide a definition that is clear and unambiguous. That is, if you took a group of intelligent people, each armed with your definition, and gave them any collection of extant animals* then each of the intelligent people would unambiguously place each of the animals into the same "kind" as every other intelligent person. You could either give a list of "kinds" or simply a set of criteria whereby, given any two species A and B, the intelligent person could determine whether A and B are the same "kind".</p><p> </p><p>You'll notice that definition by exemplification just won't do here - unless you list every animal species and assign it to a kind, that is. Nor will any appeal to "common sense", since that will differ from individual to individual.</p><p> </p><p>*For bonus points, you could include extinct animals and non-animal organisms. For further extra credit, you could extend the exercise to defining your "general kind". Alternatively, if you want an easier job, you could restrict yourself to a subset of the animalia, say mammals or birds (that's assuming that there are no "kinds" that overlap out of these categories).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MarcusHill, post: 48303234, member: 187047"] A "different" kind of a "general" kind? There are layers of kinds? That's a new one on me. Before we get on to that, here's a request I've made here on occasion, never to any success. [U]Define what you mean by "kind".[/U] I want to be clear about what I mean by "define". You need to provide a definition that is clear and unambiguous. That is, if you took a group of intelligent people, each armed with your definition, and gave them any collection of extant animals* then each of the intelligent people would unambiguously place each of the animals into the same "kind" as every other intelligent person. You could either give a list of "kinds" or simply a set of criteria whereby, given any two species A and B, the intelligent person could determine whether A and B are the same "kind". You'll notice that definition by exemplification just won't do here - unless you list every animal species and assign it to a kind, that is. Nor will any appeal to "common sense", since that will differ from individual to individual. *For bonus points, you could include extinct animals and non-animal organisms. For further extra credit, you could extend the exercise to defining your "general kind". Alternatively, if you want an easier job, you could restrict yourself to a subset of the animalia, say mammals or birds (that's assuming that there are no "kinds" that overlap out of these categories). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Speciation
Top
Bottom