On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> So, in my idiotic postivisitic mode, I assert, that pattern IS > what causality is. I mean why would one bother to attribute it anywhere > else than where we know it. > > No it's not Nick, as witnessed by the following story: I was walking through Santa Fe, when who should I meet but Nick, loudly ringing a brass handbell. "Nick, why are you ringing that bell?" "I always do this when I walk through Santa Fe, Robert. It scares the crocodiles off and stops them attacking me." "But there aren't any crocodiles in Santa Fe". "Looks like it's working then"
Pattern is a necessary condition for causality but it is not sufficient. You also need *relevance*. This is exactly the same challenge that Hempel's "covering law" model of scientific explanation faces (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological) Robert
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
