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