[Heartlogic-dev] Re: quoting your explanation of procedural adequacy

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:09:13AM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> Well, aside from being flattered, I have an obvious personal interest
> in credit.  So, what is the argument against doing it as a block quote?

Your discussion is split between p5-6 and p22-24.  I am re-organizing
it somewhat.  Let's see how it turns out.  You'll certainly get
credit in some form depending how I remix it.  Now for a question:

Why do you call it "procedural adequacy"?  This phrase initially
confused me.  I would prefer to call it "descriptive adequacy"
because that seems like the essence of it.  Just re-read your
discussion at the top of p24 -- "A limitation associated with
explicating one's theories in English, or any natural language,
is that natural languages can be notoriously vague as well as
ambiguous.  ... However, procedural adequacy assures explanatory
completeness."  To me, the adequacy of "explanatory completeness"
is "descriptive adequacy".

Am I naive?  Is the phrase "procedural adequacy" already well
established in the literature?

-- 
A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader