[From Bruce Abbott (960907.1540 EST)]
You claimed that Simon did not look at behavior in input-output terms.
Francisco showed that you were wrong. That's life.
What Simon (coauthoring with Vera, who was first author, so we're not even
sure whose opinion is being expressed) may have said in 1992 has no bearing
on what he may or may not have said in 1969. _That's_ life. To claim
otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.
A while back Clinton said he would use his "veto" pen on any welfare reform
plan that did not meet certain specifications. Evidently you would use the
fact that he subsequently did sign such a bill as proof that he never said
he would veto it.
in this wonderful little (118 page) book...Simon offers a number of
ideas which are highly congenial to the PCTers way of thinking
If you're looking for qualitative ideas that are congenial to PCTers, I'd
recommend William James (or Michel de Montaigne, for that matter) over
Without even knowing what they are. How open-minded of you.
But Simon is posing as a scientist, not an artist. Therefore, I have to
evaluate the scientific, rather than the literary, merit of his ideas.
And, of course, you can evaluate the scientific merit of his ideas without
even knowing what they are. What an amazing talent!
In science, a miss is a mile;
Progress often comes in little steps. He may not have gone the whole mile,
but Simon was contributing to movement in the right direction. I give him
credit for that. Evidently credit is it short supply around the Marken
household, and must be stingily metered out.