3 ms·
You should consider explanations within the context of which they are being given. The explanation above is sufficient for many cases, and it is a sufficient fo
by noelwelsh 3y ago
You should consider explanations within the context of which they are being given. The explanation above is sufficient for many cases, and it is a sufficient foundation for building further understanding.
It's not helpful to tell someone their definition is wrong because it doesn't cover all possibilities. You shouldn't ask a 6-year old to define numbers and tell them they're wrong when they describe the integers. This would just bring confusion and anger to the child and makes you look like an arse. You might instead tell them it's a good explanation, but there are some numbers, like one half, that it doesn't include. So maybe we can make the description a bit bigger and include the rationals as well. This makes the child feel good because they were right about something, and also learned something and you feel good because you helped them learn. The same is true of adults.
- bowsamic 3y agoOkay but the point is that all these analogies claim to apply to all possibilities, and in fact this specific person has claimed that his analogy is a general definition of monads and so applies to all monads. > This makes the child feel good because they were right about something and also learned something and you feel good because you helped them learn. I'm not going to treat them like a child just to give them the impression that they contributed. They said something that I think is inadequate, so I told them that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]