I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.
I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
-The quotable Thom Blake
Oddly enough, googling that (in quotes) turns up only this page, hehe
To wit:
Google search
Nothing like paraphrasing Oscar Wilde to seem profound.
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.