3 ms·
I hate it, because it’s either: A) not a law, but a principle B) a tautology (formally the essence is “All non-trivial abstractions are non-trivial”) (Let al
by cannabis_sam 6y ago
I hate it, because it’s either:
A) not a law, but a principle
B) a tautology (formally the essence is “All non-trivial abstractions are non-trivial”)
(Let alone the weaselly “to some degree“)
- netcan 6y agoI think this is a little pedantic. "Not a law" is strictly tue, but the "law" idiom is totally in-line with "law of supply and demand," "law of diminishing returns," etc. The tautology problem is not a problem. Tautologies are powerful. Douglas Adams has a great essay on this, but his novel version is more concise. If you want strict laws and no "to some degree" hedges, read physics.
- cannabis_sam 6y ago> but the "law" idiom is totally in-line with "law of supply and demand," "law of diminishing returns," etc. Which I equally detest. > The tautology problem is not a problem. Tautologies are powerful. They are, of course, but how is the statement tautologically useful in this context? > If you want strict laws and no "to some degree" hedges, read physics. Sure, but physics is not the only field that does not consist of, mostly, overly general, extrapolation of empirical, but ephemeral phenomena.