What is a tractor?

Libertine · Jul 12, 2004

neilly2:

Universal power source - the word universal needs defining. 

Fair criticism. Since the context is agricultural and its derivitive uses perhaps the term universal needs to be used in that sense. Of course, if by universal we mean literally all, then perhaps it is too broad since no power source will drive ALL things, even all agricultural type implements.

Other tools and implements - this needs to be further defined. A litmus test must be provided to determine what can be called a tool or implement for an absolute. 

Same response as above.

The mere possession of this, or that, characteristic does not make that thing a part of the particular class being defined. For example, some straight trucks have a pto sticking out the transmission (often for driving hydraulic pumps to power hoists). Thus, a pto is not a defining characteristic.

My ag tractor cannot operate category 2 or 3 implements. That is not very universal. 

You are confusing concretes (specifics) with categories. Size, in and of itself, is not a defining characteric any more than color. Concepts deal with essentials, with measurement omitted, while numbers deal with measurement, with content omitted. We are dealing with content, not measurement. Whether a tractor is rated for a 2-12 plow, or whether it can handle a 5-16 plow doesn't alter its inclusion within the concept of a "tractor" - both pull plows. By the way, what is the plow rating for a typical semi road tractor?

So, neilly2, since you brought it up, what is your solution to the issue of "universal?" What litmus test would you propose?

JEH

Henro · Jul 12, 2004

So, neilly2, since you brought it up, what is your solution to the issue of "universal?" 

I'm not neilly2, but I would eliminate the word universal and just use "power source."

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

So, my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements. . 

I am not confusing specifics with categories when I referred to Cat 2 and 3, but merely applying the definition as you authored it. Your comparison of the power sizing to color is useless as there is no physical appearance items in the definition. Thus, any color issue is moot. There is, however, a reference to universal power. So, in applying the definition to a given subject, the ability (or lack thereof) to power particular implements is incumbent to its universality and subsequently to its being a tractor. You cannot dismiss the power issue. A semi tractor is a tractor per your original definition, but in your last post you altered the scenario and required the definition be applyed only in an agricultural context.

If this is the case then add agricultural to the definition and change universal to a ''broad range of agriculural implements".

But, then, this does not define the word tractor it defines 'agricultural tractor'. Again, your original definition includes the semi tractor, and your original theory that 'tractor' is a symbol only for ag tractors is disproved. (at least I think that was your jist)

I think the confusion lies in your switching between defining a word and the defining of sets, subsets, and categories. What, then, is truly your point? Are you attempting to discuss the dialectic mutation of a word over time? I don't think tractor has changed much.

If you were trying to get someone to bite, you succeeded.

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

I forgot one thing---

A semi tractor could pull my york rake (an agricultural implement) without much trouble. As for the plow rating, I don't know.

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

I am posting this separately as it may be censored.

I take exception to Liberine's authoring of the original post. It smacks of someone trying, through the use of an expanded vocabulary, to elevate themselves to an intellectual plateau, while excluding many others, who may not know such words.

Just remember that true intelligence is the ability to communicate to all levels, not the ability to reference a thesaurus. Think of pro athletes using big words.

I wouldn't be writing this if I had not seen other posts by you that were authored in a completely different manner.

Why not start this post over in a more inclusionary tone.

By the way, I just celebrated my Bronze member post.

MicroPilot · Jul 12, 2004

( ....What I am looking for is to see if any of you can think of any class of objects which meets the definition I have proposed to wit: “my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements”, yet would not generally be thought of as a tractor (in the sense we are using the word symbol)....)

How about a Skid Steer? I would definatley not call this a tractor, yet it is used as power source for many different tools, and is commonly used in the Ag world.

NIXON · Jul 12, 2004

(

Et al:
Some of you complained that thinking about my post gave them a headache – I sincerely apologize. Of course, whether such an effect is a function of the density of synaptic connections per cubic centimeter of neural mass, or some other unknown cause, I cannot say. JEH

Libertine . I'm one of those with a headache ! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I do find this thread educational . I put most of the headache down to lack of use of synaptic function rather then density of connections /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif After all , I went into the AF after high school , retired and went into construction . It didn't take many "connections" to realize hitting your fingers with a hammer is "Bad " /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Keep your thoughts ,and posts coming .
It'll expand my horizons ,and vocabulary . Heck , there might even be hope for my spelling and punctuation ! John
)

Yankee · Jul 12, 2004

Gotta say that spinning a tractor definition in objectivist terms seems quite an overkill. Too much Peikoff, perhaps? Tractors are simple things. Riding mine teaches me more about what it is than I'll ever add to the world by musing on the subject. Very concrete and 'nuff said ...

Henro · Jul 12, 2004

I take exception to Liberine's authoring of the original post. 

Those of us that remember JEH under his former name know this side of him too...

As a matter of fact, I must say that some of those other posts your are referring to I took notice of too...wondering if that was the real JEH speaking, of if he had a tutor helping him write more like the rest of us! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Now I don't know JEH except from his posts here. But I think the way this thread started is the way he talks/thinks at least half of the time... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I will let him speak for himself...which he certainly is capable of doing... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

jdmar · Jul 12, 2004

JEH,
I am beginning to believe you are more and more of an existentialist. Is the final "perfect" definition more important....or just the work/effort/process required to try to define the object we all think of as "tractor?"

YANKEE,
You are closest so far iI believe! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Peter