From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 18:34:31 MST
Charles writes
> I would argue that causation is stronger than statistical-temporal
> correlation. Causation also implies a model of how things happen,
> wherein A causes B is interpreted. This is necessitated by occasions
> where people agree on the observable facts, but differ in their
> interpretations.
Do you have any examples for these sentences? I'm having trouble
following.
I'm totally unsure, also, whether you agree with the subject
line.
> (Even figuring out what the actual facts are can be quite
> difficult, however, as people have a strong tendency to
> take the name that they assign to an object as an actual
> reality,
;-) Not sure what you mean here, either. (Another example
would sure help.)
> whereas it's really a part of their modeling. The
> observables are actual sensory inputs.)
It seems to me that the name is just a label, or a pointer
exactly as in computer software. You may have several names
that refer to the same item. Also, when we use a name, or
label, we are *referring* to the final evaluation, the
end result. By "Chicago" we refer to the actual system
of roads, houses, bridges, people, buildings, etc., at
that location, so that sentences such as "Many thousands
of people live in Chicago" make sense.
For some reason, I'm always wary of referring to models.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST