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

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:51:30AM +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> 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?

D'oh!

I observe that the phrase "descriptive adequacy" is already
assigned a meaning.

How about "simulation adequacy"?

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