83,240
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The “Dilbert programme”, as it become known, thus eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any [[legal instrument]], on the grounds that such uncertainty opens the way to an unstable state of [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | The “Dilbert programme”, as it become known, thus eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any [[legal instrument]], on the grounds that such uncertainty opens the way to an unstable state of [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | ||
Thus, wherever Dilbert nouns, noun phrases , he defined them. where no better formulation | Thus, wherever Dilbert found nouns, noun phrases or even suggestive adjectives, he defined them. His research team identified a small class of cases where it was clear that, logically no better formulation of the referent was available than the referring expression itself/ exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | ||
===The [[Dilbert definition]]=== | ===The [[Dilbert definition]]=== | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == r<sub>n</sub>''.<ref>RE = Referential expression; ''r'' = Referent</ref> In this case, the thing being defined (the “referent”) and the label defining it (the “referring expression”) are identical, as illustrated in the following example: | Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == r<sub>n</sub>''.<ref>RE = Referential expression; ''r'' = Referent</ref> In this case, the thing being defined (the “referent”) and the label defining it (the “referring expression”) are identical, as illustrated in the following example: | ||