From: Marc Geddes (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 17 2005 - 00:08:59 MST
>No! No, I do not prefer consistency, all else equal.
>I prefer *only*
>that my map match the territory. If I have two maps
>that are unrelated
>to the territory, I care not whether they are
>consistent. Within the
>Way, fit to the territory is the *only* thing that I
>am permitted to
According to the coherence theory of truth as I
interpret it, the greater the number of pieces of
knowledge making up a theory that is consistent, the
higher the probability that the theory corresponds to
the territory. Therefore consistency is surely one
critera for judging the worth of a theory.
Now is a good time for me to state my 'Fundamental
Theorem Of Inference' ;) Here it is:
Explanation = Coherence x Causation
So I think a good theory (explanation) of something
requires the interaction of two major aspects:
(1) Show how the something being explained is
consistent and fits with the framework of other
knowledge (so there is a unification of knowledge -
showing how the something connects with the rest of
(2) Provide a causal explanation (so showing where
the something came from and where it's going).
The Way consists of the *interaction* of (1) and (2).
I think both (1) and (2) depend on each other and
therefore both are required to obtain the Way.
--- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT