> I think this emphasis on precise definitions is actually not that helpful. To the contrary I believe that it is very helpful. One cannot apply logic or any o

> I think this emphasis on precise definitions is actually not that helpful. To the contrary I believe that it is very helpful. One cannot apply logic or any other highly formalized method when he lacks definitions. It is hard to find a good definition, but at the same time it is the most important step in creating a theory. > I think that the guy the Socrates is examining is actually doing a better job of having someone learn what courage is by giving examples than Socrates is by trying to state a precise definition for it. Yes, it is a very helpful technique. When scientist needs a definition for a term, she starts with observing different cases. (Or rather she'd start with reading what other wrote on topic, but let's ignore this in the name of clarity). But she'd do it not like Laches by proposing examples, and not like Socrates by proposing counter-examples, but like they both: seeking for examples and then seeking for counter-examples. > Although not precisely like an ML neural net, our brains are enough like one that that this is likely to be similar as well. Our brains also very different from an ML neural net. Because we could dig a problem, construct a formal description of it, and then devise something like E=mc^2. We can generalize experience, while ML can only interpolate.