Paul
Posts:
258
Registered:
7/12/10
|
|
Re: counter-intuitive fact from everyday mathematics
Posted:
Jun 24, 2012 10:11 AM
|
|
On Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:36:02 PM UTC+1, quasi wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> >quasi wrote:
> >>
> >> But as I said, you can't have it both ways.
> >>
> >> If you make strong claims, you should be willing to
> >> accept strong critiques.
> >
> >You seem to imply that I didn't respond to the backgammon
> >point.
> >
> >I did respond to that point, although not completely
> >directly.
> >
> >I gave the following counter-argument (which I continue
> >to think is a good one):
>
> Note that the above does not have the tone of
>
> "I really don't know"
>
> It appears you think you _do_ know.
>
> >>The backgammon analogy is actually very strong evidence
> >>for my point of view. It's an extremely common error in
> >>backgammon to wrongly enter into a game plan which relies
> >>on the opponent continuously missing a joker. (A joker
> >>is backgammon parlance for an extremely good roll.)
>
> Yes, you repeatedly made (and are still making) the same
> assertion, but when Frederick Williams challenged your claim,
> you protested:
>
> "Anyway, I don't appreciate your post because I said
> up front that I didn't really know, and that this was
> speculation. And you reply by seemingly accusing me
> of speaking without knowing. I already said I didn't
> know!!!"
>
> My point is that you had no valid cause for complaint.
>
> The fact that you said in advance that you weren't really
> sure about your claim doesn't mean that a responder has
> no right to challenge the basis of your claim.
>
> In other words, I'm taking issue with the
>
> "I don't appreciate ..."
>
> part of your reply.
>
> You take your shot, you take your lumps.
>
> quasi
quasi,
In this second posting of yours, there's nothing at all that I disagree with, even though Frederick Williams was critical of his own posting.
So we can agree that the "I don't appreciate" part of my previous posting was unwarranted.
My stance on the surprisingness of it all has changed.
The fact that not a single poster has joined the thread to agree with me is strong evidence that I didn't in fact hit on a "surprising fact". Some people find it surprising, though. I do find it surprising, and I think it's a bit unlikely that none of the roughly seven billion other people on this planet would agree with me.
The backgammon evidence points in the other direction to the evidence from this thread. As explained previously, the backgammon evidence (as experienced by myself) supports my original posting.
However, I think that the backgammon evidence is weaker evidence than the evidence from this thread.
My current tentative conclusion is therefore that my thread-opening fact is unsurprising.
Paul Epstein
|
|
