I misunderstood the Q. In my opinion, yes. There is no other way to get a sound (ie, based on sheer deductive coherence) grasp of the subject. So, attack the issue for yourself:
Well, in a sense every definition carries an implicit assertion that the described object corresponds to a cluster in thing space. See also 37 ways that words can be wrong.
I misunderstood the Q. In my opinion, yes. There is no other way to get a sound (ie, based on sheer deductive coherence) grasp of the subject. So, attack the issue for yourself:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2009/07/urs-crash-course-in-sound-economics.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html
The first one has a very minor error btw—prob a typo. Good exercise to find it. A friend of mine just pointed it out to me.
So, can you explain how arguing over the definition of a word can ever pay rent?
Well, in a sense every definition carries an implicit assertion that the described object corresponds to a cluster in thing space. See also 37 ways that words can be wrong.