Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Mar 28 2023 03:22pm)
I think you see this as trivial because you're comfortable with the distinction that we define things and not observe definitions. Believe it or not, I've had even decently smart users on this forum tell me that objective categories exist and science figures them out. So it's not a trivial conclusion for most people.
Most people have very poor tolerance for ambiguity. Tell them that a chair is only a chair because we call it that and they say "you can sit on a chair". Tell them you can sit on the floor so the floor is therefore a chair and their brain starts smoking.
Most people are indeed not intellectually capable enough to have these discussions especially when it comes to philosophy which this is
From a physics perspective (I'm a chemist but have a decent enough knowledge of physics) you need to adhere to the fundamental axioms of physics/math to have any meaningful discussion. I understand that you're technically correct that assignments/definitions w/e are arbitrary, but an arbitrary point of origin must always be defined and adhered to to have any meaningful discussion, such as latitude/longitude coordinates for space (these only mean anything if you define an origin). From the chemistry perspective too, models of atoms/molecules are just philosophical models and aren't actually real.