Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 03:03:27 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1998 at 12:26:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Oliver: >I do not understand your demand of academic credentials and/or publications. Was >I stating a formal thesis about this issue? And more important: Do I need to >show some formal acedemic acreditation first to make some statements and/or >developing a reasoning? I thought that a reasonning was valid or invalid by >itself, without any weight given to the quality of the guy that do it. To do >this last thing, to talk about who the guy is that is saying something is, as >you surely remember, a fallacy of logic called "authority fallacy". Perhaps a >very natural one between academic people. They tends to develope some arrogance, >to believe that his titles give them some a priori superiority in the matter of >his craft. Well, thats' no so. A degree only means that there are some chances >that the owner of it will have a sound judgement about some field of knowledge, >nothing more. It does not means the owner of no tittles in that special area >automatically lose his right to reason, think and state his observations about >the matter. >Any case, sir, I have a title in sociology in the University of Chile, books >published in poetry, literature, journalistic essays, I write several political >sections in magazines and newspapers and I run several TV programs related with >the same suff. I do not know if these last things means something or not to add >to my professional trainning as sociologist, but I presume that at least is >enough to be in condition to deserve an answer about this or any matter. And >just in case you demand to know also my I.Q in order to continue our discussion >or not, it is 143. Not the great thing, but enough I presume to win or keep your >attention. So I hope. >Fernando My Friend, We only risk boring the other members of this club by continuing this discussion. Frankly, I am surprised that you still do not understand my rebuttal re correlation being insufficient to imply causation. What do you point to as evidence that women are not fitted (sic) for such mental operations? The only item you mention is their scarcity, it follows that you are reasoning that such scarcity in certain fields are due to mental differences. Let me know if you are saying this, and we can take this discussion one step at a time. If I do not respond to you, please understand that it is due to boredom. Perhaps, if other people do not care to respond, this thread deserves to die. Do you realize that by stating your IQ, you are simply discouraging many people from enjoying this club more? I was intent on learning your formal qualifications in sociology and I thank you for your feedback. Frankly, I am skeptical about both your IQ and your exact title, this is my problem, not yours. I may verify your 'title' in sociology, I am not familiar with what your title is, care to share that with us? If you are educated, please do not be falsely modest. An IQ of 143 is uncommon. So any sarcasm does not improve the atmosphere of this club. Frankly, if it is that high, I can only attribute your inability to understand the relationship between correlation and causation to language difficulties. Even this reason is not plausible. Let's discuss what it was that you were saying about the original topic. I would hate to see our interaction resemble some of the other less worthy threads in this club. I do not need to discuss my IQ in order to defend my point, neither did you... Hoping to read an INTERESTING and INFORMATIVE post, otherwise, please...someone make us stop!
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.