[FRIAM] The fruits of abduction

[Barry MacKichan]

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/
>