[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Ian Glendinning]

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