What is a tractor?

Libertine · Jul 12, 2004

neilly2:

Universal power source - the word universal needs defining. 

Fair criticism. Since the context is agricultural and its derivitive uses perhaps the term universal needs to be used in that sense. Of course, if by universal we mean literally all, then perhaps it is too broad since no power source will drive ALL things, even all agricultural type implements.

Other tools and implements - this needs to be further defined. A litmus test must be provided to determine what can be called a tool or implement for an absolute. 

Same response as above.

The mere possession of this, or that, characteristic does not make that thing a part of the particular class being defined. For example, some straight trucks have a pto sticking out the transmission (often for driving hydraulic pumps to power hoists). Thus, a pto is not a defining characteristic.

My ag tractor cannot operate category 2 or 3 implements. That is not very universal. 

You are confusing concretes (specifics) with categories. Size, in and of itself, is not a defining characteric any more than color. Concepts deal with essentials, with measurement omitted, while numbers deal with measurement, with content omitted. We are dealing with content, not measurement. Whether a tractor is rated for a 2-12 plow, or whether it can handle a 5-16 plow doesn't alter its inclusion within the concept of a "tractor" - both pull plows. By the way, what is the plow rating for a typical semi road tractor?

So, neilly2, since you brought it up, what is your solution to the issue of "universal?" What litmus test would you propose?

JEH

Henro · Jul 12, 2004

So, neilly2, since you brought it up, what is your solution to the issue of "universal?" 

I'm not neilly2, but I would eliminate the word universal and just use "power source."

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

So, my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements. . 

I am not confusing specifics with categories when I referred to Cat 2 and 3, but merely applying the definition as you authored it. Your comparison of the power sizing to color is useless as there is no physical appearance items in the definition. Thus, any color issue is moot. There is, however, a reference to universal power. So, in applying the definition to a given subject, the ability (or lack thereof) to power particular implements is incumbent to its universality and subsequently to its being a tractor. You cannot dismiss the power issue. A semi tractor is a tractor per your original definition, but in your last post you altered the scenario and required the definition be applyed only in an agricultural context.

If this is the case then add agricultural to the definition and change universal to a ''broad range of agriculural implements".

But, then, this does not define the word tractor it defines 'agricultural tractor'. Again, your original definition includes the semi tractor, and your original theory that 'tractor' is a symbol only for ag tractors is disproved. (at least I think that was your jist)

I think the confusion lies in your switching between defining a word and the defining of sets, subsets, and categories. What, then, is truly your point? Are you attempting to discuss the dialectic mutation of a word over time? I don't think tractor has changed much.

If you were trying to get someone to bite, you succeeded.

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

I forgot one thing---

A semi tractor could pull my york rake (an agricultural implement) without much trouble. As for the plow rating, I don't know.

neilly2 · Jul 12, 2004

I am posting this separately as it may be censored.

I take exception to Liberine's authoring of the original post. It smacks of someone trying, through the use of an expanded vocabulary, to elevate themselves to an intellectual plateau, while excluding many others, who may not know such words.

Just remember that true intelligence is the ability to communicate to all levels, not the ability to reference a thesaurus. Think of pro athletes using big words.

I wouldn't be writing this if I had not seen other posts by you that were authored in a completely different manner.

Why not start this post over in a more inclusionary tone.

By the way, I just celebrated my Bronze member post.

MicroPilot · Jul 12, 2004

( ....What I am looking for is to see if any of you can think of any class of objects which meets the definition I have proposed to wit: “my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements”, yet would not generally be thought of as a tractor (in the sense we are using the word symbol)....)

How about a Skid Steer? I would definatley not call this a tractor, yet it is used as power source for many different tools, and is commonly used in the Ag world.

NIXON · Jul 12, 2004

(

Et al:
Some of you complained that thinking about my post gave them a headache – I sincerely apologize. Of course, whether such an effect is a function of the density of synaptic connections per cubic centimeter of neural mass, or some other unknown cause, I cannot say. JEH

Libertine . I'm one of those with a headache ! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I do find this thread educational . I put most of the headache down to lack of use of synaptic function rather then density of connections /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif After all , I went into the AF after high school , retired and went into construction . It didn't take many "connections" to realize hitting your fingers with a hammer is "Bad " /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Keep your thoughts ,and posts coming .
It'll expand my horizons ,and vocabulary . Heck , there might even be hope for my spelling and punctuation ! John
)

Yankee · Jul 12, 2004

Gotta say that spinning a tractor definition in objectivist terms seems quite an overkill. Too much Peikoff, perhaps? Tractors are simple things. Riding mine teaches me more about what it is than I'll ever add to the world by musing on the subject. Very concrete and 'nuff said ...

Henro · Jul 12, 2004

I take exception to Liberine's authoring of the original post. 

Those of us that remember JEH under his former name know this side of him too...

As a matter of fact, I must say that some of those other posts your are referring to I took notice of too...wondering if that was the real JEH speaking, of if he had a tutor helping him write more like the rest of us! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Now I don't know JEH except from his posts here. But I think the way this thread started is the way he talks/thinks at least half of the time... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I will let him speak for himself...which he certainly is capable of doing... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

jdmar · Jul 12, 2004

JEH,
I am beginning to believe you are more and more of an existentialist. Is the final "perfect" definition more important....or just the work/effort/process required to try to define the object we all think of as "tractor?"

YANKEE,
You are closest so far iI believe! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Peter

Yankee · Jul 12, 2004

Existentialist? Could be, I suppose, but the phrasing is that of Objectivism, apparently mixed with a bit of stuff out of object-oriented software development (believe it or not). Given the "Libertine" name, raising obvious Libertarian associations, it makes sense. I don't know a person on the planet who uses the word "epistemology" who hasn't read Leonard Peikoff.

familyman · Jul 12, 2004

From the magazine, farm&ranch (ask Rusty); tracto ... to drag along...

Hypernix · Jul 12, 2004

Wow it's amazing how things can get out of hand real fast when you think too much! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

To me, a Tractor is a tool I use to get the job done! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And of course let's not forget to have a little fun with the tractor just once in while /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Hypernix

tracdoc · Jul 12, 2004

( I take exception to Liberine's authoring of the original post. It smacks of someone trying, through the use of an expanded vocabulary, to elevate themselves to an intellectual plateau, while excluding many others, who may not know such words.....
Just remember that true intelligence is the ability to communicate to all levels, not the ability to reference a thesaurus.....
Why not start this post over in a more inclusionary tone.)

Very well stated Neilly2!! --a modern day Alexander Pope. His "Essay on Criticism" (~1710) put it as:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not of the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Gary_in_Indiana · Jul 12, 2004

I haven't read all of the relies here so I may be repeating something someone else mentioned, but here's my take on it.

Along with all of the far better answers here I've found my tractor to be such as (I'm guessing) a neat toy, a wonderful tool, a source of pride, a place for great therapy and lots of other things, I've also likened it to a membership to something like Sam's Club or Costco.

Just like those memberships, my tractor is not a whole lot of good in and of itself other than (at least in my case) a very slow form of transportation. It is, however, just like those membership cards, something I spent money for that is essentially a license to spend even more money.

Think about it. Once you have a tractor, then you have a reason to go buy any number of things for it possibly totaling more money than your original investment.

I have nowhere to go with this. It's just something I've thought about every time I look at the implements and attachments I have or, more likely, when I look at those I want. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MicroPilot · Jul 12, 2004

( Once you have a tractor, then you have a reason to go buy any number of things for it possibly totaling more money than your original investment.)

Yea, it seems that whatever the job is, theres an implement for the tractor to get it done.

MossRoad · Jul 13, 2004

my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements. The closer that a particular class of objects (things) conforms to this definition, the more reasonably it might be referred to (pointed to) by the word symbol “tractor.” The further away, the less applicable it is. 

I agree. Except I would edit it to read:

 a tractor is a self propelled machine used to power implements 

The reason I took out "mechanical" is because I associate machine with mechanical, so that would be redundant.

The reason I took out "universal" is because nothing is good at everything and there will always be the need for small, medium and large tractors. Since they are different sizes, they cannot be universal.

The reason I changed "power source" to machine is because it sounded redundant to say "power source used to power"... kind of like "hot water heater".

And the reason I removed "other tools" is because I consider tools and implements to be the same thing.

So, just about any machine that can move itself and supply power for an impelment could be a tractor.

<ul type="square"> [*] A little lawn tractor with a mid mount deck pulling a leaf sweeper.
[*]A Gravely with a plow or mower deck.
[*]A small CUT with mid mount deck and a box blade.
[*]A large TLB.
[*]A semi tractor.
[*]A Unimog.
[*]A Pickup truck with a trailer or snow blade.
[*]Even a car with a tow strap pulling another out of a ditch. [/list]
As long as it is self propelled and provides power to an implement, at that moment, it is a tractor. Sure, the common thought of associating the word "tractor" with the "large wheels in back pulling a plow" will always be there and should be. That's what the majority of folks here at TBN associate the word "tractor" with. That's what I associate it with. We should just be a little more open minded and broaden the use of the word to include more than just that one picture that we have in our minds of a tractor.

I won't get into the definition of the word "power" as I could then cloud the whole issue like this...

My car is self propelled.
My car has a power inverter.
My car is supplying power to an AC hedge trimmer.
My hedge trimmer is an implement.
Therefore, my car is a tractor.

Where's Red Green when you need him? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Yankee · Jul 13, 2004

"So, my contextual definition of a tractor is a mechanical, self propelled, universal power source used to power other tools and implements. ... Perhaps you have a better definition for the word symbol “tractor.” If so, let’s hear it. "

Getting past all the discussion about the discussion, I think you have a pretty good definition. I like it, but would pick over a few things. For instance, a tractor at work isn't necessarily powering another tool. Consider a tractor towing a wagon. It's not powering it except in the loosest possible sense. It's performing work in transporting it about, but is it "powering" it? Tractors are also used merely as transport, e.g., as general-purpose farm vehicles.

What about integral component use? Your definition seems to envision implements, attachments primarily. Is a given tractor, as manufactured, inclusive of all of its parts in its "tractorness"? Is a tractor being a tractor when it's used as a self-contained light source, using the headlights, for example?

The "other tools" part of your definition is problematic. Some tractors are only used with integrally-assembled tools; TLBs, bulldozers, etc. In one sense that leads back to your definition. Special denomination (e.g., bulldozer) implies that they aren't really tractors anymore, somehow. On the other hand, they ARE tools attached to what we would otherwise understand as a tractor. Perhaps the "other" tools should be "attachable" tools or some such.

You might have to further refine "mechanical" and the notion of what it means to "power" other tools. Further, "power" and "universal" would have to be contextually-defined according to (a) standard(s), such as 3ph, PTO, etc., else a self-propelled generator would fit the definition. (So would a ski boat, for that matter, but let's not get TOO far afield.) Is the essence of mechanical in the means of propulsion, tool powering, or just what?

The more I think of it, the more I think another poster was right - the essence is in traction, somehow, not in tool usage. I agree that a tractor must be self-propelled, but I'd say by means of a mounted motor (IC, steam, electric, hydraulic, etc.). I'd limit its propulsive means to tires only (meaning a crawler "tractor" is really another animal). Steering, in addition to the tractor being motor-driven, would have to be mechanical. It would have to be purpose-built to provide traction in difficult circumstances (e.g., ag use, snow, etc.) *while drawing a load*.

jdmar · Jul 14, 2004

My car is self propelled.
My car has a power inverter.
My car is supplying power to an AC hedge trimmer.
My hedge trimmer is an implement.
Therefore, my car is a tractor.


Reminds me of an old (and bad) story of my father's.....proving that a lazy dog was nearly the same as a piece of writing paper.

A lazy dog is a slow pup.
A slope up in an inclined plane.
An ink-lined plane is a piece of writing paper.

hmmm

Henro · Jul 14, 2004

A lazy dog is a slow pup.
A slope up in an inclined plane.
An ink-lined plane is a piece of writing paper.

hmmm is what we sing in church... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif