-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 11/16/2007 02:04 PM:
> So we make the model better by using a larger/different network of
> interactions instead of a (misplaced) slice, and try again!
> Then on to the next problem...
Well, sure. But, my comment was about Nick's claim that the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness was the primary obstacle to agreement about
causal relationships. My response was that another (more important in
my opinion) obstacle is that causes and effects are complex. Hence, one
cannot say X causes Y if X or Y is some discrete thing. The only
accurate statement is situation Y obtains as a consequence of situation X.
I don't imply that approximations cannot be obtained by taking various
slices of X {x1, ..., xn} and Y {y1, ..., ym} and examining the
sub-inference from xi -> yj. But, there will always be room for
skepticism that your particular slices adequately capture the cause and
effect relationship. Hence, a seemingly simple question about whether
or not hammers cause nails to be embedded into wood will always be arguable.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is
fantastic that you're doing that. -- George W. Bush
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHPhs4ZeB+vOTnLkoRApOuAJ9O44tgRN0MQl/wucFroKEyl4DVVwCgk+1v
3RUJeKmRBDwN0GmcAqTFqQI=
=iX/o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
