Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!spar!baba From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Social Order and Mayhem : Re to Cramer Message-ID: <388@spar.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 04:30:56 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.388 Posted: Mon Jul 8 04:30:56 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 00:17:02 EDT References: <674@whuxl.UUCP> <2380087@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 21 >>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 5:21 pm Jul 5, 1985 */ > >>If an arbitrary speed limit of 55 is empirically superior to no speed limit >>in terms of aggregate fuel burned, aggregate accidental damage, and aggregate >>time spent by people in transit (once accidents and jams are taken into >>account), then it seems pretty clear that from a pragmatic point of view >>the arbitrary speed limit produces more satisfactory results than no speed >>limit, regardless of whether it was arrived at by science or chance. >> >> Baba > > It isn't clear from a pragmatic point of view, because pragmatism > is concerned only with means. Ends must be, at least in part, decided > upon before means are considered. > > Mike Sykora Pragmatism concerned only with means? You should look up words that you don't understand before quibbling over their meaning. Baba