(W)ith regard to question 11, remember, I am modeling "all" explanations as understood by the explainee, including changes in that understanding as more information is acquired. Certainly there exists a large number of exchanges between individuals where the presumed explanation of the exchange by one of the parties is that "the other party is rude"... (a)s I said earlier, I define an explanation to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. That definition opens a lot of doors as to what qualifies as an explanation. However, if you wish to argue with my definition, it behooves you to point out an explanation which does not provide expectations or something which provides a method of obtaining expectations which can not be seen as an explanation of those expectations... (w)hat I am saying is that all explanations can be interpreted in such a manner that my fundamental equation is absolutely valid. And that such an interpretation will yield expectations totally in line with what is known.

Question 12: In your model definition of an 'explanation', should a lie always be considered an explanation? If not, then why not?

• You are not being clear! - doctordick - December 17, 2004 - 04:16 UTC
  • hi Dr Dick - sagefr0g - December 17, 2004 - 09:53 UTC
    • Ok, it might be interesting. - doctordick - December 17, 2004 - 23:03 UTC
      • yes interesting but old hat.... - sagefr0g - December 18, 2004 - 03:33 UTC
        • Why can't you? - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 16:08 UTC
          • i may be able too.... - sagefr0g - December 18, 2004 - 23:55 UTC
            • You may be trying to read too much into that statement. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 20:27 UTC
      • Competency is not the issue - harvey1 - December 18, 2004 - 13:05 UTC
        • What I present is not a "Theory"! - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 16:05 UTC
          • Convoluted bs... - bruce - December 19, 2004 - 07:43 UTC