Subject:
|
Re: The Scott and Larry show (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:11:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
699 times
|
| |
|
|
I agree with you Dave. I think actual question I am asking Larry is very
minor. But the reason I am asking the question which is important. As I have
said time and time again, I have become tired Larry making assertions and
accusations which he will not substantiate. The point of my question was to
illustrate this. An you will note, he has still not answered. Just like he
has not answers this one also (amongst others):
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11079
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Y'know, the odd thing is I usually find Scott's remarks to be rather arguing
> the absurd, but I will admit that he's not wrong. Just pointless.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > If it was a HUNCH, Larry needs to make it clear that it was a complete
> > fabrication - not dress it up as fact. Read the text I quoted again - does
> > it sound like a hunch. When Larry said he was "unwilling" to tell us all
> > where he found the data, did that make it sound like a hunch?
>
> You're absoloutely right. Larry should indeed indicate that his statistics
> for the countries he was referring to were complete guesses based on his own
> experience.
>
> But that's a stupidly useless assertion. It begs the question what is fact?
> If Larry has only a LITTLE bit of experience of walking around in one city
> for 2 minutes, he's only got a pathetic amount of experience upon which to
> base any statistic. It doesn't make his guess "fact". If he walks around for
> an hour in TWO cities, it makes his "guess" better but still not "fact". If
> he lives there for 19 years in 4 different cities, making visits to many
> different towns and counties, it's STILL not "fact", it's just a "guess". If
> he does a nationwide survey and makes a point to visually catalog EVERYONE
> he sees and WRITE DOWN what he sees, it's STILL not FACT, it's just a
> "hypothesis", AKA "guess" based on the information he has. In "fact", there
> is no such thing as "fact", it's all, 100% guess. But because there's
> experience to back it up, it's better than pulling it out of thin air. So
> good, "in fact", that we CALL it "fact", because to go around saying
> everything is a "guess" makes our lives virutally meaningless and blaringly
> tedious.
>
> Don't bother arguing the absurd, Scott. It's a waste of time when what
> you're debating is so far above the philisophical level of "what is fact?".
> If that's what you want to debate, go ahead and debate it. But don't force
> it upon someone else when it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
> And if your argument is based on the arguing of "what is fact?", then
> chances are you have a PATHETICALLY weak argument, because you couldn't find
> anything worthwhile to debate in Larry's point.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
