Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:02:20 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 06:47:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>Here in the debate between Uri and Sune the problem becomes very clear. People >>>have a tendence to prove as true what they think to be true. But that proves >>>nothing but weak education in science. >> >>Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. > >You felt being addressed here? In a way, my procedure is to figure out what is the truth, and then prove it. It's kind of hard to do it the other way I think. >>> It is possible to understand that the host has to >>>open a wrong door but it is not clear from the question. >> >>"You pick a door-;say No. 1-;and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, >>opens another door-;say No. 3-;which has a goat" >> >>None of us are native english speakers, so perhaps we can get a ruling from >>someone else. >>Does the above quote say if he opens a door or not? > >It's not a question of English but of logic. How could you ever conclude from 1 >event on "all" events? It's trivial. Whether in Chinese or Marsian. Yes it is a question of logic. This isn't 1 event, this is an implication: you choose door => host opens door. >>>If his strategy is >>>always to open a door is not clear from the question and the only information >>>that we know for sure is that he opened a door." >> >>No it says he "opens a door", not "opened" a door, so you know for sure that he >>will do it always. > >You misunderstand me. He opens a door, ok. So we know by now that he opened 1 >door. But we do not know what happens tomorrow. At least in logic. You miss >completely the question Marilyn had to answer. And therefore I tried to explain >it in my *Conclusion*. But it seems as if you prefered to neglect it. >Nevertheless you appear and want to insist. That alone is strange. Yes I insist, see above. >> >>>Uri does what every scientist must do, he tries to find the parts of data that >>>could be accepted _without_ a doubt. Because all the rest might contain >>>interesting data, but it can't be taken with certainty. >>> >>> >>>- Sune on the other side has a tendence for authoritarian declarations, where >>>the certainty is a question of imperative gesture but not of content: "I don't >>>see anything unclear about the question at all, he opens a door for sure, and >>>more than that, he opens a door with a goat behind it." >> >>And you my friend have the weakest argumentation I have ever seen in my life, >>you never ever get to the point. When you finally get caught in you own web you >>run away saying you really meant something else. >> >>To be precise and to the point is a crucial ability for the scientist, to ramble >>on for 16 pages about nothing is the other end of the spectrum, if you know what >>I mean. > >I see. You have a personal axe to grind. Go on then and have fun. :) Sorry if I don't giftwrap my insults, that is not my style. Do you prefer a amateurish psycobable profile then? >>Then you start with you amateurish pseudo analysis of people, which is >>off-topick, offensive, and very much an escape to avoid the real debate, which >>you have lost so long ago but are not man enough to admit. > > >As personal attacks are not allowed in CCC ... But that doesn't matter for you. Actually it does, but since I didn't start it.... >>If you have any good objective arguments I will listen, but please put a sock in >>that mumbojumbo crap. > > >Ok, you made clear that you think that I'm wrong and at the same time _you_ >proved that you have no clue of logic. So - make your own conclusions. But you >must not become angry. Science is not a good base for personal insults. We're >not here to prove who is dumb and who is not. The same BTW as it makes no sense >to insult people with psychiatric layman's diagnoses. I agree, let us be objective (if we can!). >[Soon you can read a chapter about this problem _also_ in computer chess on my >webpage - - http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/rolftueschenmosaik.html] > >So I thank you for giving the slight correction to my 'Moral' below. People can >offend others also in CCC. Point taken, thank you. Ouch! -S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.