DMB, Krim, Dave, I would tend to agree with Krim here on this one point.
When you talk about the "data" being the empirical part, you seem to be expressing a very traditional "basic empiricism" as if the data were entirely objective - quite different for your radical empiricism viewpoint. Even to start calling your empirical data a "probability distribution" is post-conceptual. Personally I don't think we can reserve "terms" for empirical scientific use distinct from philosophical and/or metaphysical use, and surely our whole Pirsigian drive is to ensure people don't force these distinctions between the empirical and metaphysical to be seen to exist at their traditional boundaries ? But that's another debate. Regards Ian Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
