tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post7245454306188350680..comments2024-02-28T02:22:20.886-08:00Comments on homunculus: Philip Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-24122519476779027732009-03-09T20:12:00.000-07:002009-03-09T20:12:00.000-07:00In my opinion, those leads that you propose should...In my opinion, those leads that you propose should suffice but I still encourage the use of neologisms and new words in order to enclose a concept or phenomenon. We must not think that adding up new words creates confusion, rather, we should make new "words" in which the meaning is tightly bound to the iconic representation itself (such as the "cepstrum" or Hooke's "ceiiinossstuv") If we dared to make new meanings by tinkering with the box (language) we wouldn't be arguing about meanings and ambiguities with other fields. I guess someday creativity and dominion of language will become commonplace in science again someday. Someday, we'll dare to have the periodic table inertia again.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587571276908545412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-9686822732949475062009-03-09T19:33:00.000-07:002009-03-09T19:33:00.000-07:00This is a nice overview of the fluidity (everyday ...This is a nice overview of the fluidity (everyday example!) of terms we often assume to be, or use as, static definitions.<BR/><BR/>It seems that the need for fixed definitions would be at home in mathematics, and perhaps the concerns reflect a desire to "ground" our definitions in a similar basis.MKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04739256471961506429noreply@blogger.com