Comments on: Half-Cooked Thoughts: Grubbycup’s Robe http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2009/11/half-cooked-thoughts-grubbycups-robe/ Hydroponics for Growing Minds Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:56:14 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Everest http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2009/11/half-cooked-thoughts-grubbycups-robe/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Everest Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:49:46 +0000 http://urbangardenmagazine.com/?p=1251#comment-31 Grubby, it sounds like you are battling with variations of Sorites paradox. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the idea, it runs something like this: Consider 1000 gallons of nutrients from which drops are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows: 1000 gallons of nutrient is a shed load of nutrients (Premise 1) 1000 gallons of nutrient minus one drop is still a shed load of nutrients. (Premise 2) Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one less drop), eventually forces one to accept the conclusion that a shed load of nutrients may be composed of just one drop (and consequently, if one drop of nutrient is still a shed load, then removing that one drop leaves no nutrient at all and still leaves a shed load of nutrients). Clearly the paradox is just semantic prestidigitation, but it's fun nonetheless. We actually covered this paradox in the RANT! section of Urban Garden UK earlier this year! Amazing the things you can squeeze into a gardening magazine isn't it ... and for that matter ... a gardening blog ... ey Grubby? :-) Grubby, it sounds like you are battling with variations of Sorites paradox. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the idea, it runs something like this:

Consider 1000 gallons of nutrients from which drops are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:

1000 gallons of nutrient is a shed load of nutrients (Premise 1)

1000 gallons of nutrient minus one drop is still a shed load of nutrients. (Premise 2)

Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one less drop), eventually forces one to accept the conclusion that a shed load of nutrients may be composed of just one drop (and consequently, if one drop of nutrient is still a shed load, then removing that one drop leaves no nutrient at all and still leaves a shed load of nutrients).

Clearly the paradox is just semantic prestidigitation, but it’s fun nonetheless.

We actually covered this paradox in the RANT! section of Urban Garden UK earlier this year! Amazing the things you can squeeze into a gardening magazine isn’t it … and for that matter … a gardening blog … ey Grubby? :-)

]]>