{Hierarchical opposition}.

The writers reply to a commentary in this issue by Chris Gregory on their “Hierarchical Opposition,” which appeared in Oceania, vol. 65, 1995, pp. 347-354. They assert that Gregory's use of Venn diagrams and references to Boolean algebra do not reveal any logical scandals because these are modes of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Oceania Vol. 67; pp. 156 - 160
Autores principales: Hage, Per, Harary, Frank, Milicic, Bojka
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: University of Sydney December 1996
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=510530856&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 510530856
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00298077
        OCA
      jtl: Oceania
      issn: 00298077
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: December 1996
      vid: 67
      pid: 1303
      pub: University of Sydney
    artinfo:
      ui: 510530856
      ppf: 156
      ppct: 4
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: T
      tig:
        atl: {Hierarchical opposition}.
      aug:
        au:
          Hage, Per
          Harary, Frank
          Milicic, Bojka
      su:
        Dumont, Louis, 1911-1998
        Structural anthropology
        Venn diagrams
        Anthropology methodology
      sug:
        subj:
          Structural anthropology
          Venn diagrams
          Anthropology methodology
          Dumont, Louis, 1911-1998
      ab: The writers reply to a commentary in this issue by Chris Gregory on their “Hierarchical Opposition,” which appeared in Oceania, vol. 65, 1995, pp. 347-354. They assert that Gregory's use of Venn diagrams and references to Boolean algebra do not reveal any logical scandals because these are modes of thought that Gregory clearly does not comprehend. In addition, they maintain that Gregory's assertion that he has no argument with graph theory even though he has no use for it is naive and false. The writers conclude that it is difficult to understand Gregory's rejection of all branches of mathematics as “mere instruments of thought” in view of the fact that scientific progress so obviously depends on developing and applying such instruments.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N