2 ms·

I have trouble following: "Doesn't make for a better existential generalization from the more specific to the more general term." I kinda think I know what you

• erikerikson 1y ago
  What I wrote was a clumsy way to express the thought and particularly to use the term "existential generalization". I was thinking that agriculture doesn't include livestock, which was wrong and you pointed that out (thank you :D). I still object to the headline because "agriculture + farmer = crops" whereas "agriculture + rancher = livestock" they interviewed ranchers in one country and came out with a headline that made an assertion about farmers which seems like generalizing into agriculture and then re-instantiating into a subclass. The latter is valid to do but the generalization is taking finding about a smaller class and making claims about the broader class which is error prone at best. This occurs in a context where I have been reading about the use of machine learning for weed identification, weather prediction, saturation analysis, and a whole host of other purposes in the more crop oriented side of agriculture. That made the headline curious but I felt a bit lied to by it which fueled my original objection.