>I think I agree with you... I too believe that there is no objectively
>correct definition of "animal", but would suggest that apparent
>disagreements over statements such as "humans are animals" disappear if the
>parties involved can agree on what is meant by "animal". Arriving at a
I think they would also have to agree on what is meant by "humans" and
"are", and what constitutes "good" "evidence" :-)
>common definition seems to me to be vital to further exploration of the
>model: how far would we get in our discussion of "if humans are animals,
>then..." if we have different conceptions of "animal"?
I think people actually do get quite far without identical definitions.
But you're right, discussions tend to be more productive if the
participants are on the same page more or less.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/