jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> "Stephen Harris"  wrote 
> 
> > You appear to be saying "these changes, which are due to chance"
> > is an example of "chance causation".
> 
> Yes, for about the seventh time (are you ever going 
> to get this down) I"m saying that terms like, "due to 
> chance," indicate causation where it does not actually 
> exist.  It's a phantom created by people, like yourself, 
> who are imprecise and inconsistent with terminology.
> 
> [moderator's note: Jim, aren't you really saying "due
> to factors which may or may not be deterministic

No. I never mentioned determinism. 

> but
> which can never be demonstrated to be exclusively in
> one camp or the other"?

You have a false distinction here.  There are no camps.  
You are mistakenly assuming that cause and effect can be 
either deterministic or indeterministic. This is a 
spiritualistic notion. If you allow yourself to maintain 
a spiritualistic notion (this false distinction) then 
there's not a lot anybody can do for you.

If there is such thing as causation that is indeterminate 
we will never know.

 That is, aren't you saying that
> we can never demonstrate that selection was NOT operating,
> in a Popperian sense?

You can't turn selection off.  

 If not, then I have completely
> misunderstood this argument. - JAH]
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/8/03 2:51:47 PM