John, Andre, DMB, You say you are convinced where I said I wasn't John, but this is just word play.
I agree with you. Causation isn't better explained. It's better dropped as being "a fallacy". Increasing value is a better empirical view than causation, but this isn't any easier to explain (eg to a MoQish judge) Ian On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian and Andre, I am convinced. > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Andre Broersen > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Ian to dmb: >> >> I'm not convinced that Pirsig's replacement of causation between >> objects with patterns of preference involving conceptual patterns >> actually makes the explanation of causation any easier. >> >> > I came across this problem my freshman year of high school. I wrote about > it as a subject for an English class, and sort of expected some interest or > intrigue from my teacher over what I termed "the fallacy of cause and > effect". All he wrote on the top of my paper was that my "Hume-ian stance > wouldn't get me very far if I was ever brought up before a judge for > "causing" an accident. > > 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/md/archives.html
