Phew, this is hard to keep up with!
What is the difference between constraints and affordances and semiotic
potentials?
Lost in this music
mike
On 1/20/06, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> Even in social science you got to get your relations right.
> Categories are inherently different. They can therefore not be used
> to establish a causal relation, which is framed generally in a form:
>
>
> E = kC
>
> where the equal sign already intimates that E and C are commensurable.
>
> or perhaps more generally, causation is expressed from a
> philosophical perspective as
>
>
>
> $B"O(Bx(Fx $B"*(BGx)
>
> where events of type F are followed by events of type G.
>
> Otherwise we get ourselves into a quagmire. It makes no sense to
> establish a causation between a teacher saying something and student
> killing her (like Columbine).
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On 20-Jan-06, at 4:07 PM, bb wrote:
>
> We're doing social science, Michael, not physical science.
>
> bb
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > This doesn't stick. Look at any accepted use of cause and effect in
> > the science and scientific literature. It always establishes a
> > relationship between two or more factors, and this in quantitative
> > way.
> >
> > My ouch is not caused by your sticking, because there are lots of
> > stickings that do not lead to saying ouch. If you want to use this as
> > an example, then you relate the force of sticking or the depth of
> > penetration to the intensity of the pain. And then you have exactly
> > what I am talking about.
> >
> > The other is folk science.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20-Jan-06, at 2:50 PM, bb wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> it is easy to slip into a discourse that separates tools and
> >> artifacts from other things, which happens here, too. We then think
> >> in terms of "effects" that one thing has on another--but effects
> >> imply causal relations, which are quantitative rather than
> >> qualitative, which they need to be if they mediate. . .
> >
> >
> > Oh, cause and effect are not strictly quantitative. Engage in this
> > thought experiment. Suppose I stick you with a pin and you say
> > "ouch". The action of sticking with a pin is arguably the cause of
> > the action of uttering "ouch", and there is no quantitative relation
> > necessary, unless perhaps I repeat with needles of increasing size.
> >
> > cheers,
> > bb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:10 PST