(me) thinks of the utter stupidity of the unfortunate bird who is unable of picking the causal law at stake, for once literally at the stake where she will be cooked. The causal law is that the farmer feeds the chickens to fatten them in order to eat them. The lotus eaters will immediately explain that that was "not proved', thereby providing final proof of their laughable conceits as well as dooming the chickens. Why don't people think while muttering Quatsch? -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Sent: 02 September 2014 20:59 To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social "science" as science One thinks of B. Russell's chickens, who correlate the farmer's appearance with feeding. Farmer-->feeding, Farmer-->feeding, Farmer-->feeding, and, for what chickens consider forever, Farmer-->feeding. Then one day the farmer shows up with an ax and a chopping block. Regards, Eric -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of palma Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 11:01 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social "science" as science sir, you keep not answering the question (something Hume was aware of and tried, at least to answer in ways that are not the usual idiocies of the causal "skeptics".) to repeat, let us assume for the sake of discussion at any rate, that correlations are there. f-75005 paris france ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html N�!jxʋ�.+Hu欱�m�x,���r��{�����iƭ�����}ؠz�h��~����0��ݭ��r��}���؝y�!�i