![[userpic]](https://metapractice.ru/images/none-4ee1bcd692ded7d0186297bdd7e6cfd1.gif?vsn=d)
Что же будет являться критерием фундаментальности понятия? Каков контекст, в котором получены опытные данных? Два кольца, а посредине гвоздик, извините, мостик. MetaPhil.
1 комментарий
![[userpic]](/media/3a1a1930cec04c6821869264538938c6a4ac811c3748939d17c05dd0f77b766c)
Бэйтсон фундаментальность очень элегантно отразил, написал главу "Every Schoolboy Knows", где разобрал слова и конструкты, которые часто и повседневно используются.
"Even grown-up persons with children of their own cannot give a reasonable account of concepts such as entropy, sacrament, syntax, number, quantity, pattern, linear relation, name, class, relevance, energy, redundancy, force, probability, parts, whole, information, tautology, homology, mass (either Newtonian or Christian), explanation, description, rule of dimensions, logical type, metaphor, topology, and so on. What are butterflies? What are starfish? What are beauty and ugliness?"
"Even grown-up persons with children of their own cannot give a reasonable account of concepts such as entropy, sacrament, syntax, number, quantity, pattern, linear relation, name, class, relevance, energy, redundancy, force, probability, parts, whole, information, tautology, homology, mass (either Newtonian or Christian), explanation, description, rule of dimensions, logical type, metaphor, topology, and so on. What are butterflies? What are starfish? What are beauty and ugliness?"