Re: [quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:53:14 -0700 (PDT)

Analytic it is!

--- On Thu, 9/23/10, Martin N Brampton <martin.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Martin N Brampton <martin.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity
To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 2:27 PM


Well, Wikipedia thinks they are so defined:

Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing 
animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary 
glands while both males and females are characterized by hair and/or 
fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in 
the brain. Some mammals have sweat glands, but most do not.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Hi Neil & Martin:
> Well, here I am advocating analyticity, and the statement "all mammals 
> are vertebrates" struck me not as analytic, but rather synthetic, albeit 
> universally true on this planet. Maybe mammals are defined within 
> zoology as vertebrates whose female individuals possess mammary glands; 
> in that case, I agree. But, if the definition of mammal is an animal 
> with mammary glands and vertebrates have a spine, then, well, it could 
> be that someone will turn up a spineless animal, like an abalone, that 
> nurses its young.
> Sometimes informal or prescientific terminology gets converted for use 
> through formal definition. Water could be the stuff that Thales thought 
> it was, but now, it's two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms in a molecule.
> Thanks,
> --Ron

Other related posts: