Also, Like Nietzche, I don't always write to be understood, at least noy just by just anyone. You may need to do some work or have some training. But to those that know, it will make sense.
As a sidebar example: accurate/innacurate.
Think about this at the pixel level. It already is innacurate (its a square). Or with Jpeg compression, its also deleting information and replacing it (less accurate--like areas of information are simplified). And then, at another leve of abstraction consider something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking. You should read this, but the tl;dr is I can make an image "sharp" by ~blurring it. So, is that "more accurate" (can see it clear) or less accrurate (its more blurry?). I've just lost data. But I gained contrast. Wait, what?
So, there is a problem in continuing the discussion at this level without alot more work. Its a practical problem as well. One just need different mental frameworks to progress. Its just that simple. At the end, only then, can you come back and have a better understanding of "accurate" etc. But don't take my word for it -- that book is really good--and touches on all of this. And it is Rigorous. He's an Oxford man. Etc.
Of course, there is a reason it is a book and not a Hacker News Thread. =D
If you fall into the Continental camp of thought, then that explains why you are so hard to pin down. Continental thought is rife with meaningless hot air. Here's piece of evidence for that assertion, just in case you doubt it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
If you do fall into the Continental camp, you surely are not to blame. I blame society. On the other hand, it's never too late to replan your route to a saner road.