The difficulty is that the dividing point between "tall" and "short" is here purely arbitrary. Smileys appear in a full array of heights (or, more precisely, leg lengths). Therefore the bipartition into "tall" and "short" is not strictly required by the facts and violates a principle already established—that our knowledge should derive from our real-world experiences. The second biologist's suggestion would introduce the "arbitrary" or "subjective," which can only impede the cognitive process. In order to avoid imposing this arbitrary element and to derive our understanding strictly from reality, smiley leg-length must be viewed as a matter of degree, not as a conceptual difference in kind.
A later expedition discovered a type of tree on the planet that is very nutritious for smileys. The fruit-bearing limbs on this tree are always found at a specific height above the ground. Before advancing to the next page, can you imagine how the second exobiologist's approach might now be justified epistemologically? 
1
 |
2
 |
3
 |
4
 |
5
 |
6
 |
7
 |
8
 |
9
 |
10
 |
11
 |
12
 |
13
 |
14
 |
Previous
