[MD] Philosophy is deadly

[Ian Glendinning]

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 <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian and Andre, I am convinced.
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>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.
>
>