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

[William L. Jarrold]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> 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"?

Like I said in my response sent just a few minutes ago, I am happy
enough with simulation adequacy.  Let's hope that Carbonell answers us.

Anyway, I'd say that descriptive adequacey assses how well a theory
answers the "what?" quesitons.  Explanatory adequacy assesses how
well it answers "why?" questions.  And procedural adequacy maybe assess
how well it answers "how?" questions.

Also, I do not like the sentence you quoted from my diss.  That
sentence is "However, procedural adequacy assures explanatory
completeness."  Instead maybe I'll change it to "However, procedural
adequacy assures theoretical completeness."

Bill

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