I am reluctant to engage in this discussion at all for reasons most diplomatically expressed as a wish not to unnecessarily test my own patience, but I think I'd be remiss not to at least offer this hint to the two of you: When considering whether a difference in speaking involves a commitment to the existence of additional entities (forces, substances, et al) in one of those ways of speaking unless one can effect a perfect translation or derivation from one way of speaking to the other, it may be helpful to consider a case similar in some respects but different in others. The philosophy og chemistry provides such a case. Unlike the transition from chemistry to biochemistry to biology (where people have been inclined to posit some additional "vital force"), the transition from physiology and neurology to psychology (where people have been inclined to posit an additional "mental substance"), or the transition from the natural sciences to the social sciences (where people have been inclined to dismiss the scientific legitimacy of the social sciences altogether), the transition from physics to chemistry involves no such inclinations (at least since "caloric" and "phlogiston" were rejected). And yet, "reduction" is far more elusive than has been (until recently) simply taken for granted! A good introduction to some of the issues in this fairly new field: http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/pdf/poc_=JCE_article.pdf JPDeMouy ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/