Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 5478540" data-attributes="member: 30936">It's red. There is no definition issue. You don't see astronomers or astrophysicists or paint mixers arguing over what color something is once it's measured. That's a problem unique to philosophers.Dude, it's done all the time. Go look at a USGS map. All those green blobs with forest markings are forest. All the bits that aren't, aren't. The USGS definition specifies density, canopy cover, root density, tree size, and distance between trees. It also includes bits about whether or not an area denuded or thinned is still a forest or not and if two areas separated by such an area are a single forest, or two forests.</blockquote>That's because philosphers get paid to argue over questions, not answer them.My nickname on this board is Krensky, my real name is X. I was born on [Month] [Day], [Year] by the United States Civil Calender, at HH:MM Eastern Standard Civil Time to [Mother] and [Father]. I grew up in [town], and attended [Elementary, Junior High, High School, and College]. I truthfully identify myself as such, and I have official, legitimate documentation that demonstrates it.That in itself identifies me uniquely. Unless you want to claim that there is another human being in the history of the species that shares those quantities.Add in the elements of my DNA, my facial structure, my dental records, my distinguishing scars, my fingerprints, etc you get a pile of features that narrow me down to being 1 in several billion. Heck, from the ones I listed I'm fairly confident it's 1 in more then all the humans who ever lived.Because the people working on the problem have a vested interest in not solving it. Like consultants.There is no consensus to be reached. You're (not you specifically) arguing over an inherently subjective topic while steadfastly refusing to develop an objective, working definition. In fact, I doubt you could even do that since not everyone involved is rational (not that anyone is crazy or inferior, that's not the meaning of rational being used here) and is operating using different criteria and with different priors. Truth in any sense other then not false is meaningless construct. My sole criteria for truth is the boolean one.If one person wants to say all RPGs are D&D and another wants to say that only OD&D is D&D and I want to say that 4e (while objectively D&D) doesn't feel like D&D are any of us wrong? No. In fact we're all correct because we're all (assumedly) honestly relating the results of our purely subjective classification systems.[/QUOTE]

Verification