On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:39:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > I agree with that if-then statement, but I'm guessing "logical" means > "able to be modeled in some form of logic calculus (paraphrasing > Weinburgs regrets about ethics not being reducible to this.) For the > most part, we've done a very good job describing phenomonon this way. > > In that sense, human behavior is not logical in that basic goals > cannot be deduced through the use of these techniques (as Weinberg > pointed out). But, logic can be used in determining what means are > useful in reaching those goals. IMHO, the basic goals are more > alogical than illogical.
I would agree with all of that, although I wouldn't have stated it the same way. Many things about the universe (sans people) can be predicted, and many things about people can be predicted. In my usage in this thread, logical does not require absolute certainty or perfect precision. Your phrase "able to be modeled..." is probably a better way to state my meaning than "logical". Next time, I'll try your phrasing instead! > One other note, I wonder if Andrew has figured out that he led with > his chin by sarcastically asking about Erik's knowledge of QM. Before > I do something like that, I usually will be willing to at least check > the website given in the email I'm responding to, to determine my > opponents education and job. Heh, he'd have to dig a bit since my job doesn't imply QM background, but I think most people who saw on my resume that I had a B.S. degree in physics would figure I knew something about QM. I never made it to QED, though (switched to electrical engineering and solid state physics for my graduate study), so I will defer to you on the unified QM stuff :-) But no matter, I don't think I will be discussing much with Andrew anymore, since he is unwilling or unable to hold up his end of the discussion. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
