Ce sujet est fermé
SubAstris wrote...
OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?
SubAstris wrote...
OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?
byne wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
I find it funny how people compare the theory to creationism vs. evolution.
Young Earth Creationists and 9/11 Truthers are usually the two things they fall back to compare us to.
I didnt really think SubAstris was a troll at first, but he's basically going out of his way to use the same language trolls do.
SubAstris wrote...
byne wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.
Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.
See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.
Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.
I should add that OR not only entails that fewer assumptions make it more likely but also greater ones, more shaky ones. For example, if it were only due to fewer assumptions, then Creationism would triumph over Evolution, yet it doesn't. Sorry, I assumed familiarity of the concept.
My comparison with the cat is not invalid because objectively both interpretations are equally valid depending on your perception of the events and evidence. Do not equate this to creation or evolution. It is more like Common Quantum physics versus String Theory. There's not enough evidence to prove one right over the other yet.SubAstris wrote...
I think the comparison with Schrodinger's cat is invalid because it assumes both interpretations are equally valid, which is only your opinion (you profess to be neutral, do you not?). I agree both can't be proven totally correct or incorrect, but that doesn't imply one is as good an interpretation as the other (like Creation v Evolution).
I think the problem is you think IT and not IT are equally valid and not proven wrong. I think that IT is less likely to be true, although it has not been confirmed or proven untrue. Common ground?
Skillz1986 wrote...
But this is not really a debate. The moment your opponent is not really answering your arguments, or deljberately leaves out or misinterpretes otherwise very clear statements, it is merely a farce and nothing more. in which case the more rational party should end the conversation.
protognosis wrote...
I take it you've never been to the South/Bible Belt of America.
Modifié par byne, 21 avril 2012 - 09:53 .
I'm finished.Drift Avalii wrote...
So now the argument has devolved into the method of debate rather than the subject? We come here to discuss our thoughts, not scrap over the rights to 'I told you so' later on. Is agreement to disagree really *that* hard?
byne wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?
Yes, that makes more sense.
Dwailing wrote...
byne wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?
Yes, that makes more sense.
Yes, but I would say it almost takes MORE assumptions to say that taking the endings at face value is right. Or if not more assumptions in terms of quantity, than defintitely shakier assumptions. To take them at face value, the first assumption you have to make is that BW messed up BIG TIME. I could not make that assumption.
byne wrote...
protognosis wrote...
I take it you've never been to the South/Bible Belt of America.
No one should be subjected to such horrors!
BatmanTurian wrote...
My comparison with the cat is not invalid because objectively both interpretations are equally valid depending on your perception of the events and evidence. Do not equate this to creation or evolution. It is more like Common Quantum physics versus String Theory. There's not enough evidence to prove one right over the other yet.SubAstris wrote...
I think the comparison with Schrodinger's cat is invalid because it assumes both interpretations are equally valid, which is only your opinion (you profess to be neutral, do you not?). I agree both can't be proven totally correct or incorrect, but that doesn't imply one is as good an interpretation as the other (like Creation v Evolution).
I think the problem is you think IT and not IT are equally valid and not proven wrong. I think that IT is less likely to be true, although it has not been confirmed or proven untrue. Common ground?
You can believe that IT is less likely to be true, but you cannot present it as fact because you have no definitive evidence. It is your opinion supported by your perception of events and evidence, most of which has an equally plausible different interpretation. You have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact. That's where we are.
Drift Avalii wrote...
@ BatmanTurian
I know how easy it is to get sucked in, believe me. I had to write that post four times so I didn't wade in too - but in the end the only thing that may convince SubAstris will be outright EC confirmation of IT. So to avoid everyone getting all riled up arguing about how to argue (fighting for fightings sake, which I'm aware you didn't start) , I'd save your breath for debate with people with open minds.
Dwailing wrote...
byne wrote...
protognosis wrote...
I take it you've never been to the South/Bible Belt of America.
No one should be subjected to such horrors!
I live in Kentucky. I'm subjected to those horrors on a very regular basis.
byne wrote...
Dwailing wrote...
byne wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?
Yes, that makes more sense.
Yes, but I would say it almost takes MORE assumptions to say that taking the endings at face value is right. Or if not more assumptions in terms of quantity, than defintitely shakier assumptions. To take them at face value, the first assumption you have to make is that BW messed up BIG TIME. I could not make that assumption.
Note that I am not saying his idea that Occam's Razor means the endings are literal makes more sense, I am just saying that explanation of Occam's Razor makes more sense than the first one he provided.
I think I meant that as a response to SubAstris.
Drift Avalii wrote...
@ BatmanTurian
I know how easy it is to get sucked in, believe me. I had to write that post four times so I didn't wade in too - but in the end the only thing that may convince SubAstris will be outright EC confirmation of IT. So to avoid everyone getting all riled up arguing about how to argue (fighting for fightings sake, which I'm aware you didn't start) , I'd save your breath for debate with people with open minds.
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
My comparison with the cat is not invalid because objectively both interpretations are equally valid depending on your perception of the events and evidence. Do not equate this to creation or evolution. It is more like Common Quantum physics versus String Theory. There's not enough evidence to prove one right over the other yet.SubAstris wrote...
I think the comparison with Schrodinger's cat is invalid because it assumes both interpretations are equally valid, which is only your opinion (you profess to be neutral, do you not?). I agree both can't be proven totally correct or incorrect, but that doesn't imply one is as good an interpretation as the other (like Creation v Evolution).
I think the problem is you think IT and not IT are equally valid and not proven wrong. I think that IT is less likely to be true, although it has not been confirmed or proven untrue. Common ground?
You can believe that IT is less likely to be true, but you cannot present it as fact because you have no definitive evidence. It is your opinion supported by your perception of events and evidence, most of which has an equally plausible different interpretation. You have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact. That's where we are.
But those perceptions may or may not be supported by evidence, if they are, they go in its favour, if not, they don't
You seem to suggest that if I suggest an alternative explanation, as long as it is my perception of the facts, it is as equally valid as anything else. So say I think that the whole of ME3 happened in a parallel universe, using your logic this is as valid as IT or any other view, right? Does that really make sense to you?
"It is more like Common Quantum physics versus String Theory"- . It is not about proving one over the other in an absolute sense, but showing which is more likely. You are taking the view that IT has good evidence for it, and alternative explanations too, and so knowing the evidence, how can you actually be completely objective and completely neutral about it?
"you cannot present it as fact because you have no definitive evidence"- You've got it!!
byne wrote...
Dwailing wrote...
byne wrote...
protognosis wrote...
I take it you've never been to the South/Bible Belt of America.
No one should be subjected to such horrors!
I live in Kentucky. I'm subjected to those horrors on a very regular basis.
I live in South Carolina, so I am too. I was simply speaking from experience.
Retour en haut