Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3076 talk.philosophy.misc:1824 sci.lang:3924
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!oberon!sm.unisys.com!ism780c!ico!nbires!matt
From: matt@nbires.nbi.com (Matthew Meighan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Categorization
Message-ID: <207@nbires.nbi.com>
Date: 12 Jan 89 19:48:16 GMT
References: <681@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <2959@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <965@husc6.harvard.edu> <179@calmasd.GE.COM>
Reply-To: matt@nbires.UUCP (Matthew Meighan)
Organization: NBI Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 16

In article <179@calmasd.GE.COM> wlp@calmasd.GE.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) writes:

>   [ stuff deleted]
>All animals that have feathers are birds and all birds have feathers.
>This is not just a "cultural bias" nor is it an arbitrary rule.

Just curious:  exactly what makes this rule non-arbitrary and
not culturally-based?  Are you saying that if a different culture 
categorizes animals differently, then they are "wrong" and the
above-mentioned categorization is "right", in some absolute sense?  If
so, please provide your proof.  This categorization seems arbitrary on
its face to me.
-- 

Matt Meighan            "The eighties are the fifties in color."  - Cowtown  
matt@nbires.nbi.com (nbires\!matt)