jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote 
> 
> > Josh: 
> > Probably what we need here
> > is a comprehensive definition of "cause", or
"causation". 
> > Would you care to offer one at this point? - JAH]
> 
> Would you agree that whatever definition we agree on it should 
> be objective?  Afterall, this is supposed to be science here, 
> right?
> 
> Maybe the first step is to agree on what rules we should employ 
> to insure that our defintion is objective.  What do you think?

No response?

[moderator's whoops: Whoops! I didn't notice that was addressed
to me in the first place. John Edser has taken a first swipe at
a definition (to me, alas, incomprehensible). But as to your 
question, Jim, I agree entirely: objectivity is a desirable 
characteristic. But we're in danger of infinite regress if we
require an objective definition of what an objective definition
is....my main concern here is not so much agreeing on a definition,
but rather, being explicit with one's definitiions, so as to avoid
talking at cross-purposes (i.e. if you and I mean different things
by "cause", without knowing it we may be talking right past each
other). - JAH]


Jim
---
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 2/26/03 12:23:54 PM