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;nickthompson at earthlink.net
Sent: 11/17/2007 8:47:43 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071117/c2bd1d86/attachment.html
Locked
