From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 07:20:33 GMT
GLENN (to Steve):Thanks for taking a shot at "linear causality".
ERIN: LOL you and your violation of quotation marks
You put them in when you shouldn't and leave them
out when you should put them in...
All in the name of confirmation bias
I never called it linear causality Glenn you did.
I was trying to describe the relationship of
causes and effects.
ERIN:>Can you explain why it is completely ruled out.
GLENN:I wish I could. But I think physicists can tell based on
what happens, and don't need to know how it happens.
ERIN: what do you mean they don't need to know how
it happens? how can you be sure its causal when you
don't know?
you said you were happy with Wim's defintions right?
So who is having a confirmation bias with this
phenomenon?
1) causal--presume a common precondition, even if we don't know what that
would be.
2)Acausality then simply means that we don't understand how A could happen
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 07:13:59 GMT