I would say that the author agrees with you on this point. Only if there
are non-precise justifications is the word “precise” needed, i.e.,
not redundant. And everyone knows 😉 there are no redundancies in
scientific articles.
--Barry
On 14 Feb 2019, at 12:10, Nick Thompson wrote:
Ah, the excluded middle strikes again:
"...was an intuition without a precise justification..."
Who ever said that justification had to be precise?
Can there not be probable justification?
You hear a sharp noise as you are walking in the street and you duck.
The chances that that small motion will actually save you from any
harm are one in a million, yet, hey!, the cost is minimal and the
potential gain is high.
By the way, speaking of ducks, how do you tell if your doctor is a bad
doctor.
Well, you ask him a difficult medical question, and if he ducks,
he’s a quack.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
