Actually that isn't my question and frankly I don't care what the answer
is. I don't even think there is one answer. I have a meta-question.
How does the question above not dissolve into an argument over the
definition of the term "create"?
Do people discover?
Do people invent?
Does an objective concrete reality exist?
For these and a number of other questions many people (including, I
hesitate to admit, myself) have crossly insisted something like:
"Yes, but these words must have some meaning! You can't just use them any
way you like. We have to have some consensus or else we aren't going to
get anywere. If you don't accept [insert axiom/definition here] then you
are just mentally fucked up [or, as seems to be in vogue these days
'logically inconsistent']. I can't imagine how you can live without
[axiom-de-jur]."
Such statements are (empirically, we've seen it) unproductive. No one gets
convinced of anything. Eventually one or the other "sides" in the argument
gets exausted and the thread dies unresolved.
Can anyone create, invent, discover, assemble, or otherwise bring into my
perception some way to avoid this?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------