In terms of first-order logic, "Humans have hair" is suggestive of ∀x(human(x) → has_hair(x)). Distressingly, "natural" language is not based on first-order logic, so it comes out meaning something more like "a proportion of humans sufficient to establish a general principle (this proportion being entirely subjective) have hair".
no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 05:23 am (UTC)Also, I'd say context is just as important as the actual statement in interpreting it.
I.e. [alien biologist, upon coming upon an unidentified hairless specimen, to colleague insisting it's human] "Humans have hair."
not really the same as: [alien biologist, upon coming upon an unidentified hairy specimen, to colleague insisting it's not human] "Humans have hair."
no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 08:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 10:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-31 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-01 09:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-01 06:17 am (UTC)Not all humans have hair on their heads.