Re: causation in theory

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David,

Does this really deserve to be called a `critique'?
Or is it just a sophist's debating point?

Perhaps you mean that it is a critique of naive
methodological defenses of science, like those
Gunnar is so upset about.  But so what?  The
pragmatic defense of the activity is contained
in the activity itself, not in the meta-activity.

Alan


David Gleicher wrote:

> This gets to the point that I was making about the post-modern critique,
> which you seemed to dismiss, and which is an anwer to my question;  i.e.,
> there is no way of scientifically proving your assertion.