Re: categorization and generalization...

[eric (Eric S. Raymond)]

> What is failed to be noticed here is that whether there are linguistic terms
> or not, this collectivism (often called generalization) is quite likely to
> happen in any language. it *IS* a function of world-view.
> 
> Whether I talk about (to use Eric's example) 'Mr. Jew' or 'Jews' or 'the
> Jewish people' or "loi xebro" this is the SAME GROUPING.
> 
> It makes no difference whether things are presonified (#1), generalized
> implicitly (#2) or generalized explicitly (#3). They all amount to a grouping
> of individuals into a mass-set (#4) and the assigment of atttributes to that
> set.

However, the three forms imply three different presumptions about the
metaphysics of universal statements.  To the extent that language conditions
thought, they reinforce different presuppositions about the *kind* and
*amount* of evidence required for generalization.

My claim is that the "mass term" presupposition is both a) formally bogus ,
(in the sense of making hash out of any attempt at deductive reasoning from it)
and b) conducive to unsanity.  That is, it leads to unpredictive beliefs and
bad behavioral choices.

This claim cannot be refuted by pointing out that all three forms can be
used with the same referent (that is, some group).
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com  (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)