Well, I'd say it depends on the complexity of those objective reasons. “The way to carve reality at its joints, is to draw simple boundaries around concentrations of unusually high probability density in Thingspace. Otherwise you would just gerrymander Thingspace.”
(OTOH I think language should also depend on what you value: if your utility function is the number of inwardly-thrice-bent metal wires capable of nondestructively fastening several standard sheets of paper together at an edge in the universe, it's handy to have a single word for ‘inwardly-thrice-bent metal wire capable of nondestructively fastening several standard sheets of paper together at an edge’, whether that's a natural category or not. But you shouldn't pretend it's a natural category.)
"No true Scotsman":
A: No human thinks red shirts are better than blue shirts.
B: Lots of psychopaths think red shirts are better than blue shirts.
A: I meant true humans. Psychopaths aren't really humans, so don't count.
B: What about my friend Billy? He is not a psychopath but thinks red shirts are better than blue shirts.
A: True humans are non-psychopaths who are not your friend Billy.
Not "No true Scotsman":
...A: No human thinks red shirts are better than blue shirts.
B: Lots of psychopaths think red shirts are better than blue shi
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules: