From ragnarok@pobox.com Thu Apr 25 14:48:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 25 Apr 2002 21:48:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 93969 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 21:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2002 21:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 21:48:25 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A99C7E440112; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:48:12 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] So you think you're logical? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:48:11 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14118 >But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead by the end of the 18th century. Why would we preserve it in Lojban? Aside from >physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving it -- it does >not function well. And in those cases, {ri'a} still works. (I skip over my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.) The only prescientificness I can see is in the fact that if it were used when there is no causation, it would entail a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One would never use bai for this, because that would be fallacious!