Measurement Omission

[brian0918]

Also, there are many situations when using a concept (such as "engaged") is not proper without refrerence to a specific context. In that case, in order to properly use the concept the measurements ommited are not a matter of arbitrary choice.

A word is not a concept. The same word can be used to reference many different concepts. The context of the sentence determines the concept that is being referenced by the word. But that has no impact on the underlying structure or formation of concepts.

Edited October 21, 2010 by brian0918

[JayR]

A word is not a concept. The same word can be used to reference many different concepts. The context of the sentence determines the concept that is being referenced by the word. But that has no impact on the underlying structure or formation of concepts.

A word that doesnt represent a concept would be a sound, not a word. I think youre saying the same thing that I did in sentences 2 and 3, I said "using a concept (word) is not proper without referrence to a specific context". This obviously is not the case with every word, but the example I gave "engage" is a "package deal" in sentences like "after the war is over, the U.S. should remain engaged with middle eastern countries". Are you saying when using and forming concepts, which particular measurements are ommitted is not important to the structure and formation of the concept? All Im saying is that it is.

[ZSorenson]

I think of 'measurement' in this context as the contingent element of a concept as it relates to the retained characteristics of that concept.

So, however a given characteristic can differ, while remaining what is is as per the definition of the concept, is what the measurement captures.

Spatially, 'measurement' refers to this element. And spatial concepts are easy to grasp, but not all concepts are spatial, and not all 'omitted measurements' are spatial or scalar measurements.

[icosahedron]

I think the measurements ommited can properly be a matter of choice while using a given concept in certain situations, but when forming the concept the rules are more rigid. If measurements are ommited willy nilly in the formation of a given concept epistemological chaos would ensue. "Package deals", invalid concepts and so on.

Also, there are many situations when using a concept (such as "engaged") is not proper without refrerence to a specific context. In that case, in order to properly use the concept the measurements ommited are not a matter of arbitrary choice.

Excellent!

One must distinguish between constructing a concept, and using it (e.g., for the purpose of relating measurements of its properties).

Fully agree: concept formation does not follow rationally from arbitrary focus, nor haphazard measurement omission. That sounds more like an Epicurean recipe for evasion.

My point is that, with rational focus, it is possible to choose which properties are relevant in a given inquiry, which I think you also agree.

Cheers.

- David