"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
>
> Isn't that trivailly true of any classification scheme, though?
> We also invented classification schemes for dog breeds - for example.
> Intelligent agents put things into categories.  In nature, things just
are.
>
Some categories are well-defined eg molecules can usually be assigned
unambigously to their chemical class.
Others are a bit fuzzy - eg "species" is good enough for everyday purposes,
but you have problems with asexually-reproducing organisms, hybrids, ring
species etc.
Others are fuzzier still. Dog breeds and human "races" would fall into this
category. Now the place the boundaries are drawn is partly arbitrary. For
instance, are pygmies "Negroes"?
Finally you have categories like "working class". These aren't
meaningless -
if we say "The Simpsons are a working class family" that excludes Homer
being a merchant banker. However if someone objects "personally I think the
Simpsons have several characteristics which would make them lower middle"
then there is no easy objective criteria we can apply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/28/03 11:30:25 AM