[FRIAM] The fruits of abduction
Barry MacKichan
barry.mackichan at mackichan.com
Thu Feb 14 15:19:14 EST 2019
I would say that the author agrees with you on this point. Only if there
are non-precise justifications is the word “precise” needed, i.e.,
not redundant. And everyone knows 😉 there are no redundancies in
scientific articles.
--Barry
On 14 Feb 2019, at 12:10, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ah, the excluded middle strikes again:
>
>
>
> "...was an intuition without a precise justification..."
>
>
>
> Who ever said that justification had to be precise?
>
>
>
> Can there not be probable justification?
>
>
>
> You hear a sharp noise as you are walking in the street and you duck.
> The chances that that small motion will actually save you from any
> harm are one in a million, yet, hey!, the cost is minimal and the
> potential gain is high.
>
>
>
> By the way, speaking of ducks, how do you tell if your doctor is a bad
> doctor.
>
>
>
> Well, you ask him a difficult medical question, and if he ducks,
> he’s a quack.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
More information about the Friam
mailing list