Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA07980 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:08:34 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.215] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:04:31 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F961bXS0FhKktkpgnkT0000132f@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2001 23:04:31.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5E1BEE0:01C0BE24] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:52:07 -0400
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris Taylor" <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:45 AM
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> > Robin Faichney wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > > > > > > Prove it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ocam's Razor:
> > > > > > In explanation, don't multiply entities unnecessarily. Causality
>is
> > > > > > sufficient. The burden of evidentiary support rests upon the
>positive. It's
> > > > > > not for anyone else to prove that there ISN'T an unnecessary
>redundant
> > > > > > additional unknown factor aside from causality.
> > > > >
> > > > > "An unnecessary redundant additional unknown factor" is redundant
>(as
> > > > > well as incoherent). I'm only suggesting that perhaps some events
>don't
> > > > > have a cause. In this case, "there is nothing which happens that
>does
> > > > > not have a cause" is the positive upon which the burden of
>evidentiary
> > > > > support rests.
> > > >
> > > > This is science not law - that means (strictly speaking) you have to
> > > > disprove my assertion (my surmise of my general experience of the
> > > > world).
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Cos, er, that's the way it usually works. Put up a theory, then consider
> > it to be provisionally true until killed by the usual ugly little fact.
> > Darwinian evolution would be a good example.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
> > http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>Truth is the correspondence of statements to reality. That's objective, not
>"provisional" (sic).
>
>
What about truth as coherence? Would it be incoherent of me to say that
something may be "true" within the limited context of a theoretical system
or belief set, yet untrue when tested against reality?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 00:11:24 BST