It seems related to how we view additivity. One stone is a stone, twenty stones are a heap and usually “matter” as a heap—separate valley. One tactless relative is a tactless relative, five of them are family history of no tact. And we know that stones, even lonely, usually only appear so—there’s got to be the heap somewhere. I can imagine a GW critic counting on a fortress of anti-GW evidence which he hasn’t found in finite time.
Interesting what makes us go looking for it, in any case, be it a good heap of stones or a bad one.
It seems related to how we view additivity. One stone is a stone, twenty stones are a heap and usually “matter” as a heap—separate valley. One tactless relative is a tactless relative, five of them are family history of no tact. And we know that stones, even lonely, usually only appear so—there’s got to be the heap somewhere. I can imagine a GW critic counting on a fortress of anti-GW evidence which he hasn’t found in finite time.
Interesting what makes us go looking for it, in any case, be it a good heap of stones or a bad one.