> >
> > "The pattern of events" is the dependent variable. You have to
> > pinpoint the base for the reason of change, before the "pattern of
> > events" happen to go the wrong way. Who was talking about any final
> > solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive.
> >
>
> >
> >
> > "The pattern of events" is the dependent variable.
>
> Now you are using the terminology of inferential statistics.
>
sorry, I didn't mean to...
> > You have to
> > pinpoint the base for the reason of change,
>
> Presumably by "base" you mean the independent variables. If so, then I
> don't understand
> "independent variables for the reason of change". What I could
> understand is: what are
> the independent variables influencing the pattern of events? And that
> I've answered in
> various previous posts. But, in any event, one can only state that a
> relationship exists
> in probabilistic terms.
>
I must have missed it, I can't remember
you pointing out the irregularities
in the economic mechanism. That is the
(relatively) independent
variable.
I can't see the probabilistic side;
capitalist means of production has
particular consequences as seen
over and over again.
>
> To rephrase: one has to identify the independent variables before the
> dependent variable
> goes the "wrong way". You seem to see this as a quality control problem,
> i.e. ensure
> that the dependent variable stays within certain limits.
No, not really. The point is, that it is futile to
manuver (sp?) those variables that are dependent on
structures some of us content to leave as they are.
> While there may
> be some insight
> to be gained by adopting that metaphor, it is not one that I intended. I
> guess all I was
> saying was: Find a need, and fill it! (the entrepreneurial maxim updated
> to reflect a
> more complex environment).
>
and proving to be as shortsighted and ineffective
policy as can be, both in finding needs and filling them,
even in the literal sense.
> > Who was talking about any final
> > solution? I find such a strawman a tad offensive.
>
> And, believe me, I was sensitive to the implication of the term;
> however, your uncompromising views do give the impression that you can
> see only one solution, and that
> that solution is the final one. But, even so, I do apologize for giving
> in to my baser
> instincts.
>
Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when
presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such
what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good
approximation to reality, such as, say, Newton's views
on gravity? Was he uncompromising about these?
Eva
> --
> http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
>
