On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:41:03 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Richard: OK to "representations". Do you think there are things
accesible (or "visible") to our intelect (objectivism) or all we have
are models of external world built by our minds with the help and
mediation of our biological and technical sensing/measurements
apparatus?

Hi Miguel,

This has gotten pretty metaphysical.

I insist in that because I think that two or more models could be
capable to "explain" observed phenomena and we could partially agree
on they instead dispute hard about the "right one" :)

Data explains - the rest is the ego of pride of authorship.

Metaphysical discussions about the "thing itself" was very strong and
sterile before Newton stop caring about the "whys" and decided dealts
with "howtos" :). I think you were thinking about this when you
equalize "because"="superstition". Am I right?

I don't know.

However, though causality is an epistemological issue, usually in the
macroscopic phenomena we accept "If A, then B" as a causal relation,
example: If a rock hits my feet I absolutelly think the pain is due to
the stone, not a simple acausal correlation. In this sense is it valid
to use "because the stone")? Thanks to all for your comments

Don't you think your pain is due to nerve sensations? Rocks hit rocks
all the time and there is no pain due to anything any where.

Or maybe there is an optical proof that refutes this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC