Re: Abundance (was: Re: Take Back Your Time Day)

> ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tg):
> I see that we probably have irreconcilable differences with regard to
> the interpretation of empirical observation. You believe that
> correlation or association is sufficient to infer causality. Not
> prove, infer. I couldn't disagree more strongly.


Okay.  I can't imagine how you get to causality without some
form of association, though.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tg):
> You also seem indifferent to the idea of studying a phenomenon by
> restricting the context and holding variables constant. That said...


I said you can't do it with politics in the real world,
I believe.  It's an excellent procedure to follow in a
laboratory, however.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tg):
> I observe, in the USA, that some people work 100 hrs/wk in order to
> have some version of "the basics", while others work 20. Is your
> definition of abundance that, as long as you can get the basics, no
> matter how difficult it is, there is abundance? If you work 140 hours?


No.  As I said, I observe that (for instance) some of the
basics (food, clothing) are cheap, and where they are not
cheap, production and distribution are strongly restrained
by government and other institutions.  Or if I didn't say
that, I should have.  And I limited my observations to
North America; I don't claim to know what's going on in
Zimbabwe or the Tuvan Autonomous Republic.

-- 

                (<><>)         /*/
       }"{   G*rd*n   }"{   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   }"{ 
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't