Not when following inductive reasoning.As an example,
Assuming that:
1. The probability that Revan has a combat ability that can be valued at X = 0.9
2. The probability that a combat ability valued at X would enable one to defeat Darth Sidious on an even footing = 0.9
3. The probability that a fight between the two is fought on an even footing = 0.9
Then using the "and" rule of probability we can state that the probability that Darth Revan defeats Darth Sidious in a versus battle = 0.9 X 0.9 X 0.9 = 11! 0.729!
Which would still state that it's likely that the event would take place. Not that we necessarily have access to such precise probabilities but it clearly illustrates that conclusions based around inductive reasoning can be reached using probability based data.
Surely this is not the best that you can do! I mean, you wouldn't think that the above post is sufficient to support-
It was used to illustrate that probability can be applied to both the conclusion and the premises in inductive reasoning.
You've made me sad on the inside. You might ask "Why Nemesis, what egregious error of categorization or audacity might I have committed?"
The answer would be that you've asserted that your argument supports something that it does not prove in the least. I will not argue with the idea that our matches are determined by inductive evaluation of probability. That doesn't seem inaccurate at all. What is inaccurate is that you wish to extend the domain of inductive reasoning to the facts. Look:
The probability that Revan has a combat ability that can be valued at X = 0.9
Revan has no such facts. We cannot use inductive reasoning to determine Revan's power- we can't extrapolate from a vacuum.
So: NO
Well he defeated Malak, that makes him pretty strong. And Malak... well he...
He was Revan's apprentice. And if you can be Revan's apprentice, then you're pretty strong. Why's that? Because Revan's really strong. Why's he strong? Because he defeated Malak. Why does Malak matter? Because he was Revan's apprentice.
Haha! My claim is irrefutable, my logic: sound. This bulletproof quotation of Revan's abilities shall stand as testament to his rank as second only to Palpatine!
Originally posted by truejediYeah, I've been putting together all the arguments for Revan's power for some months now. After several grueling hours of final editing phases, I managed to fuse together the masterpiece of canonicity you see before thee. Let it be a beacon of light and wisdom for all those who refuse to kneel at Revan's godly golden feet of Power.
Lucien, i am crystal clear, dead serious when i tell you that ties for the best argument i've seen yet for why Revan is powerful.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, I've been putting together all the arguments for Revan's power for some months now. After several grueling hours of final editing phases, I managed to fuse together the masterpiece of canonicity you see before thee. Let it be a beacon of light and wisdom for all those who refuse to kneel at Revan's godly golden feet of Power.
well, i rest my case. I know when i'm beaten. Revan was powerful because he beat malak who kept all the other sith with no names or feats in line while Revan was off becoming a Jedi.
Malak was powerful because he was the second best to Revan. He was therefore stronger than Bandon, and definitly stronger than all the people with no names.
This makes Revan > Yoda.
I've been fighting a losing battle all along.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Surely this is not the best that you can do! I mean, you wouldn't think that the above post is sufficient to support-[color=blue][font=times][size=3]
You've made me sad on the inside. You might ask "Why Nemesis, what egregious error of categorization or audacity might I have committed?"
The answer would be that you've asserted that your argument supports something that it does not prove in the least. I will not argue with the idea that our matches are determined by inductive evaluation of probability. That doesn't seem inaccurate at all. What is inaccurate is that you wish to extend the domain of inductive reasoning to the facts. Look:
[color=blue][font=times][size=3]
, then you'll find that I have already agreed that we speculate on the outcome. (Ideally we do so logically, but it is speculation nonetheless.) What is not speculation is the axioms we consider. Luke killed Shimirra. Mace punched a battle droid in the face. Twice. Yoda fought Dooku to a stalemate on a planet steeped in Dark Side power. These are all legitimate canon axioms that we can draw upon.
You portray this as an axiom; a given fact that we can use to evaluate a character. You present the key, disputed idea as a prop in your argument that we speculate on the outcome. If you'll [b]READRevan has no such facts. We cannot use inductive reasoning to determine Revan's power- we can't extrapolate from a vacuum.
So: NO [/B]
WhY NemEsis, what egregiouS error of categorization or audacity might I have committed?