Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:53:27 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 16:02:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 12:27:14, martin fierz wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 09:41:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, >>>>but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. >>> >>> >>>That is simply an impossible statement to understand. >> >>this is so simple to understand that it's impossible to understand that you >>don't understand it :-) >> >>we're back to logic class: >>"bad reasoning A leading to some decision X" does not mean "decision X is >>unreasonable". > >This isn't logic. "I disagree with the reasoning" but "I don't think the >result was unreasonable". The "reasoning" is the only thing that _led_ >to the ridiculous "decision"... of course this is logic. as a student i was in an oral math exam and should have delivered some kind of proof. i made an attempt, and the professor said: "it's intuitive, but it's not a proof". so basically i was giving an argument that X was true, but the argument was not correct. which changes *nothing* about the truth of X. i know what you mean of course. but to discuss about decision X itself should have absolutely nothing to do with the argument/reasoning that led there. cheers martin > >> >>BTW, the arbiter's decision is always final in *lots* of activities, e.g. in >>most team sports. it can be wrong, but it's the arbiter's decision. you have to >>live with it... > >Yes, but in most cases the arbiter is competent to arbitrate. :) > > > >> >>cheers >> martin
This page took 0.01 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.