Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2
From: The Sophist (sophist_at_brown.edu)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: First Causes"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:28:20 -0400
Neil W Rickert wrote:
> Why do people play chess? If we could predict human behavior, we
> would know the outcome before the game begins.
>
> Why do we hold elections? If we could predict human behavior, we
> would know the election outcome before the vote.
>
> Why do we hold trials (legal proceedings)? If we could predict human
> behavior, we would know the verdict before the trial started.
Why do physicists conduct experiments? If we could predict the behavior
of inanimate physical things, we'd know the outcome of the experiment
before it happened. That human behavior displays the kind of
unpredictability by us which you cite here proves nothing at all.
-- Aaron Boyden The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: First Causes"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|