Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:33:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
921 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > Very nicely put, Larry...
>
> David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is
> confusing to the readership and extremely poor form.
>
> > However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that
> > given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4
> > (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean
> > that the hypothesis E -> F (OJ did it) is untrue.
>
> Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated
> with the same inference.
Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I
wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one
point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make
*all* points null and void. It was an *example*. I just thought you worded
it better. I shall endeavour to make my own examples from now on.
>
> > Now if *all* claims are refuted, then the hypothesis needs to be
> > re-examined. A list of claims is not a logical sequence of events,
>
> It may or may not be. It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You need
> to perform analysis on the claims and assertions to determine that. But
> sequence and inference are different things. Again, perhaps a failure to
> understand logic.
Perhaps it's the failure of understanding english--a list is a list, like a
menu, not one menu item being connected directly to another--just a list,
and a sequence is a series of points like "connect the dots".
To be specific, if you dispute one point in a series of events, then you can
dispute the hypothesis. However, you would have to dispute all points in a
list to dispute the hypothesis, and I thought that you phrased it nicely.
Menu:
-hot dog
-hamburger
-home fries
-caesar salad
-B.L.T.
-Sout of the day
Someone may say "I don't like burgers, therefore this restaurant is not for
me" That person would be erronous.
Series--
How a car moves (much simplified to be sure)
Gas -> spark -> expanding gasses -> piston moving -> transmission gears
rotating -> drive shaft turning -> axle spinning -> tires moving vehicle
Now take one of those points out and the car will not move, therefore the
whole thing doesn't work.
> > a list
> > is just that--a list--and all points have to be refuted before the
> > hypothesis is shown to be erronous.
>
> No. You're missing the point. If it's a chain, cutting one link is all that
> is needed. One cannot determine whether a list is a chain or not without
> analysis.
Due to my flawed example (my bad), you didn't get my point. Sorry 'bout that.
>
> In this case...
>
> Prosecution showed motive and opportunity but did not show method. You
> cannot convict without all three. All three are required to be proven beyond
> a reasonable doubt for me to be satisfied. In that case, these three form a
> chain. Knock one away and you have broken the overall chain. Cochrane
> (primarily, he was a good attorney and attacked everything even where his
> counter was weak) attacked method because it was the weakest link in the
> overall chain,
>
> They failed to show "method" because their claimed "method" was itself a
> chain, not a web, and Cochrane broke a link. Breaking that link breaks
> method. Breaking method breaks beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> If they had presented 5 valid and plausible methods, then Cochrane would
> have had to break all 5 as the five then would form a web for methods. They
> did not.
>
> > Now I will be the first to admit that I basically tuned the entire trial out
> > after the first week and I am on the same page as you as to why I think OJ
> > did it. I was using the case as an example.
>
> So you used as an example something that you "tuned out". That may not be
> the best use of everyone else's time. I paid attention...
K, as admitted, it wasn't the best example, but I couldn't think of another
example right off the top of my head. To be sure, tuning out the OJ trial
was like tuning out the sun--it was everywhere and I got the gist. Since it
really didn't matter to me personally, I didn't 'get into it'.
>
> Your example is flawed as a way to make your point. You were insufficiently
> precise in your original statement and I called you on it. You might want to
> consider using things you paid attention to when selecting examples in
> future to make sure you don't waste the time of the readers.
>
> > We had a discussion a long time ago about the weakest link in a chain, but
> > as someone mentioned then, if the chain link is more of a web, you must snip
> > lots of links before the web falls apart.
>
> Now that you've restated, yes, I agree, when one is dealing with a web, one
> has to cut every strand (at some point or another (1) ) for the argument to
> fail. But the prosecution's argument in the OJ case wasn't a web. It should
> have been though. They would have convicted had they done their job, my gut
> tells me.
Agreed
>
> 1 - the calculation of all possible cutpath for a cyclic undirected graph
> that uniquely and minimally partition it into two disjoint graphs can be
> transformed into the traveling salesman problem (or hamiltonian path
> problem) IIRC, and therefore is NP-complete (NP-hard?). Again IIRC. Just
> thought I'd toss that out there. :-)
>
> ++Lar
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Thank you for the clarification, on rereading I see that they are your words, my apologies. Point still stands though. (...) A list neither IS nor ISN'T a sequence (or chain of inferences, note the difference). Further it neither IS nor ISN'T (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is confusing to the readership and extremely poor form. (...) Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated with the same inference. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
