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

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He's not specifically addressing the complex set of predictions set forth by Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

This whole idea has gotten completely away from what Tx was originally talking about. When Christ lived, and later when the NT was written, false religions had already existed for thousands of years. God warned the Hebrews about idolatry continuously throughout their history, and He gave detailed reasons why He disapproved and why those relgions existed. None of this involves a prediction.

Tx was simply saying that the existence of other religions, some of which were already thousands of years old at the time of the NT, doesn't amount to evidence against Christianity. You have to look at the content of Christianity and one of the important elements of the content in regard to this question is the explanantion provided for those religions.

I wonder if DS thinks the fact that there are many poker theories that contradict or disagree with him lowers the probability that his theory is correct. There are hundreds if not thousands of poker books. Why read Sklansky? Don't some of his books mention "detractors"? Would that statement be worthless?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does it change anything if you give not just a reason why they will say it, but a reason why they are wrong? This is what the Bible does.

(And no I'm not arguing that the world is flat, nor does the Bible say the world is flat. Geez...)

[txag007]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't true either. It depends on the specifics of the theory in question.

[andyfox]

I didn't say your were arguing that the world is flat, nor that the Bible does.

It would depend on what the reason was. Merely because I give a reason does not discount the arguments of others. 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." Given that, for example, to follow up on David's example, purveyors of quack medicines will say that the medical estalbishment is against them because they cannot make money off them, the quality of the reason is important. Merely giving a reason does not negate the relevancy of the detractors' arguments.

[David Sklansky]

"I wonder if DS thinks the fact that there are many poker theories that contradict or disagree with him lowers the probability that his theory is correct. There are hundreds if not thousands of poker books. Why read Sklansky? Don't some of his books mention "detractors"? Would that statement be worthless?"

Yes, Not Ready, the existence of those other books DOES lower the probability that my theories are correct. And I can't wiggle out of that fact by alluding to any mentions by me of detractors. Atheists, Enlightened, Poker Authors, and Conservative Christians, must all understand that myriad detractors is a LEGITIMATE objection, that an outsider can bring up and they must meet the objection to HIS satisfaction.

On the other hand this is all a fine point. It wouldn't be if 99.999% of people are SURE a theory is wrong because historically only a very small fraction of theories that had this much opposition turned out right. Only 90% of people disagreeing with something should make you think twice and double check your ideas but then you go on and make your case. But it SHOULD make you think twice. And txaq was seemingly disagreeing with that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the existence of those other books DOES lower the probability that my theories are correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that as a math question only this is true about any theory.

Look at these two statements from the same paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]

And I can't wiggle out of that fact by alluding to any mentions by me of detractors

myriad detractors is a LEGITIMATE objection, that an outsider can bring up and they must meet the objection to HIS satisfaction.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first is basically the math question. The second is what Tx and I are saying. So you do see the difference. Though I techniclly disagree with "HIS satisfaction" and would repace it with "valid reason".

And I guess it is all a fine point. Content trumps math.

[David Sklansky]

Its a fine point but an important one. It means that one shouldn't be defending their theory against detractors by using the excuse that the theory itself would expect detractors. It is an argument beneath you if you think you have a good theory.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
It would depend on what the reason was. Merely because I give a reason does not discount the arguments of others. 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." Given that, for example, to follow up on David's example, purveyors of quack medicines will say that the medical estalbishment is against them because they cannot make money off them, the quality of the reason is important. Merely giving a reason does not negate the relevancy of the detractors' arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! You'd have to evaluate the merits of the argument, something I have been saying all along. Thank you.