I'm Technically Wrong On One Aspect of My Debate With Txaq

[David Sklansky]

Suppose you espouse the theory that the moon is made of green cheese AND that all Chemisty Phds will disagree with you. Their disagreement is a NECESSARY PART of the theory.

And of course they do disagree with you. The green cheese part that is. And the vast majority of the rest of the population disagrees with you. Mainly BECAUSE the chemists do.

Well the rest of the population upon hearing the chemists verdict must go with that opinion and disregard your accurate prediction about those chemists. But because you are already inside your own theory, so to speak, hearing the news about the chemists should do nothing to make you doubt your theory if you didn't already.

And maybe this was all txaq was trying to say. That since the existence of so many detractors is actually an integral part of his religion and its predictions, he should not be expected to find those many detractors, a reason to doubt. Of course it IS a reason for outsiders to doubt.

And there is a bigger problem that txaq or the lunatic above, if they try to wiggle out of the dilemma of numerous detractors this way. Which is that they NEED all these detractors. Without them the original theory is kaput. What happens if everyone starts agreeing with them. Hey, maybe thats why Not Ready (but not txaq) believes that elected minority stuff. Takes away the risk of the religion eating itself.

[siegfriedandroy]

u are technically wrong on most of what u say...


...thfap: "and never play a hand like a9o" from the button when stealing...this is clearly incorrect as is much of thfap..'dont get me wrong....i think ure an innovator...but funerals?...."

[chezlaw]

ARTHUR:
Hail Messiah!
BRIAN:
I'm not the Messiah!
ARTHUR:
I say You are, Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
FOLLOWERS:
Hail Messiah!
BRIAN:
I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!
GIRL:
Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
BRIAN:
What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
FOLLOWERS:
He is! He is the Messiah!
BRIAN:
Now, [censored] off!
[silence]

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
And maybe this was all txaq was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, please...

I wasn't trying to say anything. I said it, and you ignored it. So I said it again, and you ignored. So I said it again...you get the point.

You having started this thread is insulting, and if you weren't David Sklansky, posters would be up in arms about why we need a new thread on the same subject.

[andyfox]

Doesn't seem to me he ignored what you said. He challenged it. The crux of your argument, if I understand it correctly, was summarized by Pair the Board as:

"He's saying there are many false religions which is explained by the Bible, so the existence of the religions are not an argument against Christianity."

You said:
"When you have an explanation within the theory as to why the detractors are misguided, it discounts the argument, YOUR argument, that the mere existence of the detractors is enough to doubt the validity of the theory."

This cannot be right. If I say the world is flat, it does not discount the arguments of others that the world is round because I say that there will be others who will say the world is round, even if I give a reason why they will say it. You talk about the "mere" existence of destractors. What is "mere" is the claims of the Bible that there will be detractors and its apologists then using this claim as "evidence" for its truth. David's quack medicine purveyor analogy was apt.

If I understand David correctly, he is saying that if I say to 3-bet with 7-2 offsuit, and 99% of others say no, fold, it's more likely they're right and I'm wrong. And if I say to 3-bet with A-A, and 99% of others say fold, it's still more likely they're right and I'm wrong.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem to me he ignored what you said. He challenged it. The crux of your argument, if I understand it correctly, was summarized by Pair the Board as:

"He's saying there are many false religions which is explained by the Bible, so the existence of the religions are not an argument against Christianity."

You said:
"When you have an explanation within the theory as to why the detractors are misguided, it discounts the argument, YOUR argument, that the mere existence of the detractors is enough to doubt the validity of the theory."

This cannot be right. If I say the world is flat, it does not discount the arguments of others that the world is round because I say that there will be others who will say the world is round, even if I give a reason why they will say it. You talk about the "mere" existence of destractors. What is "mere" is the claims of the Bible that there will be detractors and its apologists then using this claim as "evidence" for its truth. David's quack medicine purveyor analogy was apt.

If I understand David correctly, he is saying that if I say to 3-bet with 7-2 offsuit, and 99% of others say no, fold, it's more likely they're right and I'm wrong. And if I say to 3-bet with A-A, and 99% of others say fold, it's still more likely they're right and I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

All he's saying is that there's a difference between being an insider and an outsider. For insiders, a preexisting prediction of detractors is sufficient to dismiss outside disagreement as being counterevidence. For outsiders, it isn't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Their disagreement is a NECESSARY PART of the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to make the point that Christianity NEEDS false religion? What?

[ QUOTE ]

What happens if everyone starts agreeing with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

But we expect that to happen in the millenium. You're making no sense whatsover or I'm completely missing your point (not impossible).

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Their disagreement is a NECESSARY PART of the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to make the point that Christianity NEEDS false religion? What?

[ QUOTE ]

What happens if everyone starts agreeing with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

But we expect that to happen in the millenium. You're making no sense whatsover or I'm completely missing your point (not impossible).

[/ QUOTE ]

Had Christianity come on the scene predicting false gods and detractors, and everyone immediately jumped on the boat, well, it would mean that at least one pretty severe prediction was wrong. A hole would have been poked.

The second one isn't speaking to a later prediction. It's basically saying that if people were supposed to disagree forever, and they didn't, it would be a hole in the theory.

It's tough to make generalized arguments on topics that are so specific.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The second one isn't speaking to a later prediction. It's basically saying that if people were supposed to disagree forever, and they didn't, it would be a hole in the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]


What? What? What? What?

not a "later prediction" but "forever"

What? What? What? What?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The second one isn't speaking to a later prediction. It's basically saying that if people were supposed to disagree forever, and they didn't, it would be a hole in the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]


What? What? What? What?

not a "later prediction" but "forever"

What? What? What? What?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not specifically addressing the complex set of predictions set forth by Christianity. He is addressing (I think):

1. Set 1 of predictions
A. People will disagree

If people don't disagree, then that prediction is wrong. It's a hole in the theory

He is not specifically addressing:

2. Set 2 of predictions
A. People will initially disagree <--- first prediction
B. People will all agree after X000 years <--- later prediction

The second one would have a hole if people did not initially disagree, or after Y0000 (I bumped up the time frame by an order of magnitiude to make a point) years still didn't agree.

If there's a prediction in a theory, and the prediction is not met, then that's a piece of evidence against the theory.

Now let's talk about "insiders" and "outsiders." First let's look at Set 1 of predictions.

If there are a lot of detractors, and set 1 is the set of predictions that we're discussing, then an insider shouldn't worry about it, because they were predicted. If an outsider is looking at the information, then it's a strike against the theory. It shouldn't matter to an outsider if that was predicted or not.

Now for set 2. He wasn't speaking to that, but if you're an insider, any deviation from those predictions should be a strike against the theory. Namely, if either nobody disagrees ever, or if the time for everyone to agree is long gone and people still disagree, then there's a hole there (as the predictions were not met).

If you're an outsider, you need only look at the number of detractors, at whatever time. Detractors == some evidence against it. An insider telling you that "they predicted that nobody would agree" shouldn't change that opinion, unless you're an insider.

I think that's more clear, but still looks pretty messy to me.