<<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
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen