Re: My Final Word On Religion For A While
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand this is all pretty irrelevant. Because even though you, Pair The Board, and Txaq are drawing dead in your quest to disprove that widespeadsd disagreement is always a factor in evaluating a theory, it is also true that it usually isn't a strong factor. It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors. I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your logic is wrong. This slam dunk logical factor of yours has problems. It is often negatively corollated with the truth. If the detrators are prejudiced toward the issue for some reason then bringing your Factor In to deliberations just Brings in that Prejudice. Why do that when you can just leave the Factor out and make an unbiased judgement of the issue based on its own merits? Because you think we should be forced to apply some general psuedo-probability that false propositions produce detractors? It's not allowed in a court of law. We are not bound by Sklansky-Logic to apply it when we can take a guaranteed fresh unbiased look at the issue on its own merits.

David, if you were called for Jury duty and asked if you could disregard public opinion about the case, would you be able to do it? Or would you insist the Court must accept your Sklansky-Logic?

PairTheBoard

Re: My Final Word On Religion For A While
 

[ QUOTE ]

My argument in your example WOULD apply to all 100 worldviews. The fact that they disagree among themselves about who is right, doesn't change the fact that 99 agree that you are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, if an alien was told there are 100 WVs, and nothing more, simple probability would say each is only 1%. I don't disagree with that and I don't think Tx does either. Tx included content as explanation so it's more than just probability.

[ QUOTE ]

Also remember that Txaq's argument ironically works almost exactly as well for Atheism as conservative Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you change his argument. You keep ignoring the whole argument, which isn't just a probability issue.

[ QUOTE ]

It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be starting to get it.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't your logic I'm disputing, it's your statement of the problem. Wasn't my illustration of the salesmen correct? If so, doesn't that mean the problem is different than what you're stating?

Re: My Final Word On Religion For A While
 

"Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your logic is wrong. This slam dunk logical factor of yours has problems. It is often negatively corollated with the truth. If the detrators are prejudiced toward the issue for some reason then bringing your Factor In to deliberations just Brings in that Prejudice. Why do that when you can just leave the Factor out and make an unbiased judgement of the issue based on its own merits"

My goodness, what is wrong with you? And I mean this in a medically concerned way, not the other way. First of all it should be obvious to you that I consider that fact that 90% of people disagree with something to be only a tiny piece of evidence if there is any other noteworthy evidence. 100% disagreeing with you might be significant but not really 90%. And in some very rare cases 90% could even be inversely correlated. Meanwhile the fact that 90% disagreement may be misinterpreted by a layman is good reason to disregard it altogether, especially in a court of law.

But in spite of its small applicability the concept remains correct as long as it can be historically shown, as I assume it can, that ideas which had 90% disagreement have turned out wrong more often than those with lesser disagreement. For instance I am not perfect. When what I say is disagreed with by 80% of the population the chances I am right is 99.97%. When 90% disagree with me it drops to 99.86%. Even I can't escape this purely logical principle.