Completely and absolutely and TOTALLY off the mark.
What is the PATTERN of relation between occurences of handbell ringing and
crocodile appearance? There aint none. So there aint any causality. Fits my
model EXACTLY.
thanks for your support. Nyaah!
Nick (the Mature Scholar) Thompson
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/17/2007 8:47:43 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
So, in my idiotic postivisitic mode, I assert, that pattern IS what
causality is. I mean why would one bother to attribute it anywhere else than
where we know it.
No it's not Nick, as witnessed by the following story: I was walking through
Santa Fe, when who should I meet but Nick, loudly ringing a brass handbell.
"Nick, why are you ringing that bell?" "I always do this when I walk through
Santa Fe, Robert. It scares the crocodiles off and stops them attacking me."
"But there aren't any crocodiles in Santa Fe". "Looks like it's working then"
Pattern is a necessary condition for causality but it is not sufficient. You
also need relevance. This is exactly the same challenge that Hempel's "covering
law" model of scientific explanation faces (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological)
Robert
============================================================
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
