Jeff:
> I agree entirely that truth (usually) is dependent on context
> for most of our interactions with the world. One can think
> of truth as a property. It is typically the case that this
> property can be reduced to things other than the property
> itself (reductionism may well be adequate usually for truth).
This reduction is usually dependent on context itself (unless you are
a reductionist).
> But what about properties other than truth?
> Pproperties that may be stronger than truth...
I am unsure what you mean by "stronger" here (it may not be
relevant).
> Properties that can not be reduced to things (context) other than itself....
> .....................deleted jeffs list.....
> whole new expanded science...there is lots of stuff we can do
> with it...we just haven't thought of anything yet.
You keep on talking about reducing something to context. This is a
little odd. If you could reduce something to context, you would not
need the thing itself, the context (and reduction method) would
suffice!
The question is not "Can ***** (e.g. the 'l' word) be reduced to
context?" but "Does the meaning of ***** change with context?".
> 4) I have completely missed your point (or brought up completely
> different issues that were not applicable to your point).
I all for it - use this technique frequently myself.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html