Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:21:53 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 11:48:06, martin fierz wrote: >On December 19, 2003 at 10:58:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 19, 2003 at 05:42:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On December 19, 2003 at 04:59:19, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>No it isn't. This is what Omid tried to turn it into, but it is _not_. >>>>>None of the logic stuff applies here. The statement is simply taken at >>>>>face value... >>>> >>>>yes it is. oh, we are down to "no ist isn't" and "yes it is" :-) >>>> >>>>we are talking about GCPs simple sentence that he disagrees with the reasoning >>>>but doesn't find the decision unreasonable. you say this sentence is impossible >>>>to understand. >>>> >>>>that is the context. forget about omid. forget about graz. >>>> >>>>e.g. say a guy runs over and kills a pedestrian in his car when he's drunk, and >>>>during the investigation the police finds out that he evaded taxes in the >>>>millions of $$$. in most western countries the guy will go to prison because he >>>>evaded taxes, not because he hit someone with his car and that person died. now >>>>for me that is completely unreasonable (i think killing someone is worse than >>>>evading taxes), but the final result, the guy ends up in prison, is the same as >>>>i would have decided. >>>> >>>>cheers >>>> martin >>> >>>But the question "is it possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons?", >>>isn't so easy to answer just by using logic. >>> >>>There is an aura of ethics and principles surrounding it :) >>> >>>If we judge a man to go to prison for a murder he didn't do, but in fact >>>commited one nobody knows about, do you think the judgement is correct? >>> >>>-S. >> >>There is more to it than that. The final decision was _clearly_ wrong if all >>that is considered is the written rules. So either other reasons were good >>enough to violate a written rule, or the decision to violate the written rules >>was simply wrong. >> >>He didn't agree with any of the reasoning used to violate tournament rules. >>Therefore, how could one agree with a decision that directly violates rules >>being used? > >ask GCP... that's exactly what i meant: instead of saying that sentence is >impossible to understand, you could ask him what he means by it. I wrote _exactly_ what I meant. My statement was not made in a vacuum, all by itself. Neither was his. There is a _ton_ of context surrounding the discussion, and my statement was made _after_ all that context had already been presented, discussed, argued, analyzed, post-mortem'ed, etc. > because the >simple way of understanding his sentence is: "reasoning A was given to come to >decision X. i don't like reasoning A, but decision X is not unreasonable because >you could have used reasoning B which makes sense". so the sentence is in fact >very easy to understand, I return to my previous point. "In Context" the statement is impossible to understand. No possible "reasonable justifications" have been presented so far. Not a single one. The rules have been precisely quoted, limiting the operator's ability to influence the game. Since he has given _no_ _other_ reasons, and didn't in that statement either, I stand by my "that is impossible to understand." IE "the justifications are wrong, but the decision was right" simply does not compute _in this context_. Not in logic 101. Not in a prolog class. But _here_ after all previous discussion. > however, i have absolutely no clue what reasoning B >would be :-) Nor do I. > >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.