From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 17:27:56 MST
Jef writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Well, then I (now) would say that if A *always* comes
> > before B, what right to we have to say that A is not
> > the cause of B? ("Always" is a powerful adverb.)
>
> Well, it seems to me that if we try to go by that logic we will have to
> admit that we never have enough data to know what *always* will happen.
The same point was made by David Hume.
> The universe has been known to throw in a wild card time and again.
> That is the problem with a certain class of inductive argument when
> trying to prove an absolute.
Yes, all the J.C. claim is is that by "A causes B" we
mean and we only mean that A always comes before B.
Gts writes
> Do you consider this statement of mine below sufficient
> proof that event A does not always cause event B even
> when A always precedes B? [No]
> "One cannot see the stars (event B) unless one first
> opens one's eyes (event A), but opening one's eyes does
> not cause one to see the stars. (i.e., A does not cause B.)"
Incorrect. (To write in the style of the old unmellowed-out J.C.)
One may very well be able to see stars without opening one's
eyes, as, I believe, Ross pointed out. Technologies can be
obtained to accomplish this, and some people may already be
seeing---but not stars yet---with their skins.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST