Hello Brian,
"the classification of samples and
development of criteria proceed simultaneously, each influencing the
other."
Of course that your affirmation is 'generally' true. I FULLY agree
that our understanding or our definition of a concept can evolved
too, but as result we will have next to this other classifications
(more refined or not etc..)...
But your afirmation is wrong in one point: THEY DO NOT "proceed
simultaneously" ('circular explanation'), but one after the other.
It is obvious that you need a pre-existing criteria (inner
definition of the concept) on your first trial to make the first
grouping...next of course you can refine our understanding/definition
of this criteria...make another grouping and so on...( please apply
your explanation to an example, to check this)
Regards,
marius alexandru
P.S. : Sorry I will end with this here, even I wanted to say more on
the "Piotr wings of penguin" that once again is a bad example too.
The wing of pinguin is still 'a wing' even is a deprecated one and
will dissapear as wing (because meanwhile it found another utility).
But this don't make any contradiction on the afirmation "that the
model/the pattern pre-exists any of its apparitions".
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:
> At 8:43:50 PM on Wednesday, January 7, 2004, alexandru_mg3
> wrote:
>
> > What I wanted to say is that the "model of wing" was
> > "fully coded" in the genes before the "first wing"
> > appeared on Earth, so the 'idea of wing', pre-existed its
> > first apparition
>
> No.
>
> [...]
>
> > If not, How we could be able to group (or not to group)
> > samples, without having/knowing FIRST the criteria that we
> > have to use for this grouping.
>
> This is marginally on-topic, I suppose, since the same
> question can be asked about any kind of classification. The
> answer is obvious: the classification of samples and
> development of criteria proceed simultaneously, each
> influencing the other.
>
> Brian