Stathis, thanks for your reply, but my two points in return are: 1. to the list-appearance remark: I did not miss the 'responses', I missed the list-mail CONTAINIG my post. Whether there is a response is of course up to the (non?)respondents. I don't "require" such.
2. in the thread: I wonder if your logic is straightforward, if you don't have an understanding about a "very complicated" system, a fault in it will NOT clear up your underestanding. I agree that in medical 'sciences' there is a widely used practice of studying the sick and drawing conclusions on the healthy, but that does not mean that I should accept it as the right method. You can draw true conclusions from the 'faults' if you know the unfaulted system. Otherwise you just guess. Maybe guess right John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: Re: John Conway, "Free Will Theorem" > > John Mikes wrote: > > >Stathis: > >it is always dangerous (wrong!) to mix deviated cases (sick patients) with > >the general (non sick) human (behavioral etc.) concepts. > >One thing is even worse: to draw conclusions of such. > > I disagree with this, in general. In medical science, in particular, one of > the most common means of progress in understanding normal physiology has > been the study of pathological cases. If you have a very complex system, and > a fault develops, if you can trace and understand the fault, then you > understand at least one small part of the system. > > >I wrote some comments in this thread lately and did not see them being > >included in the list-posts. Am I banned from writing to the list? > > John, of course your comments are welcome on the list. It is easy to think > that you are being ignored when nobody replies to your post, but that is not > necessarily the case. The posts that get most replies seem to be the ones > that say something provocative, controversial, or just plain wrong: everyone > loves a good argument! It could simply be that everyone agrees with you if > you have no replies. For example, I don't think anyone specifically replied > to George Levy's post on this thread, which I thought was very well reasoned > and I completely agreed with. > > --Stathis Papaioannou >