From sbelknap@xxx.xxxx Thu Apr 22 08:30:33 1999
X-Digest-Num: 121
Message-ID: <44114.121.688.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:30:33 -0500
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@xxx.xxxx
Subject: da blanu de

>The new "by standard..." does not solve that problem, nor does appeal to
>general paradigm cases. But people seem to get by just by using the rule
>they use in English (or whatever), which is what the original insight was an
>attempt to make explicit.
>pc

I certainly agree with pc that the "by standard" place does not completely
resolve the problem of what we mean by <da blanu de>. The dialectic
regarding this issue seems to drift aimlessly, never being resolved
definitively. Some time ago I suggested that this dilemma might be an
instance of circular definition or failure to acknowledge axioms. If one
wishes to avoid circular definitions and unproven postulates, some terms
must be left undefined, and some axioms must be left unproven. For example,
in Euclidean geometry, the undefined terms are <line, point, set,
betweeness>. The axioms are Euclid's five.

Color is a particularly vexing issue, as it has cultural determinants. We
apparently do *not* all agree on what blue <blanu> is. So leaving it is an
undefined term is problematic. It is simply not the case that understanding
what we mean by blue is axiomatic. This could, I suppose, be solved by
specifying the particular wavelengths involved, or the particular retinal
aldehyde reactions involved, but as has been previously discussed, neither
of these is really satisfactory. So I can't tell you what I mean by blue,
but I know it when I see it.

-Steven
Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria