Re: [H] Combos vs. Singles

Hi Catherine,

This is another example of the difference between "common" use of a
word, vs. the technical use. Actually I was using it, in that
instance, in the technical sense, of having homeopathic similarity.
I can't now remember my sentence, but I do recall that this was my
intention.

Regards,
Shannon

On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Catherine Creel wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net
> >wrote:
>
> <<But, um, how can A be similar to B, but B not be similar to A? >>
>>
>
> Hi Shannon,
>
> Your statement is too generic to stand up to logic. Think about this
> for a
> minute. The term "similar to" is too vague to be useful. For
> instance, if
> A = humans and B = mammals, then your statement would read:
>
> All humans (A) are similar to mammals (B); all mammals (B) are
> similar to
> humans.
>
> So, let's test it.
>
> An armadillo is a mammal. Is an armadillo similar to a human? It
> can be
> because the term "similar" allows me to broaden my search and identify
> anything that creates a similarity (they both breathe, both have
> legs, both
> give live births, etc.).
>
> But how truly similar is an armadillo to a human? If the human is
> one
> homeopathic remedy and the armadillo another, are they similar
> enough to
> each other to be interchangeable?
>
> The problem is I can find "similarities" between almost any any two
> things, so when the word "similarities: is used, it doesn't hold up
> as an
> example of logical proof.
>
> Regards,
> Catherine
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
> homeopathy@homeolist.com
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy