Originally posted by Lord Lucien
[B]Everyone needs to read this. EVERYONE.The following is a piece of truejedi's and Kotor3's debate. Each successive quote is a direct response to the previous. Kotor3's response is THE definition of foolishness and idiocy.
That, kiddies, is what not to do. [/B]
Oh, you were being serious.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nm, it says they.. During the fight Zannah realizes it. Doesn't really change anything.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the quote where it says Zannah's fight with Sarro would have ended a lot sooner if he (Sarro) had been equipped with the orbalisks?
The book didn't explicitly state that Bane stopped caring about hits on him until it was 4-1. He was getting a handful from Raskta herself.
Regardless, he demonstrates it throughout the duel from his very opening move, and even if he hadn't it's pretty obvious that he can afford to take hits to the body given that it has no real effect on him.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Neb
So we have established that inductive reasoning is used to draw conclusions about fights. The question at issue is how important the strength or validity of the evidence submitted is, no?
The question at issue, at least thus far, appears to be more about terminology rather than methodology. In short, my terminology revolves around the idea that steps taken in between the very starting evidence and the final conclusion would be better reflected in the premises of an inductive argument as statistical probabilities so as to retain meaning and relevance between the premises and the conclusions.
I also find that when people don't use such terminology, and simply use the very starting data as their premises, they tend not to think of using data that has more of an indirect reflection on the argument, or data that collectively reflects on the argument.
Unless I am gravely mistaken, you wish to argue that the steps taken to reach the conclusion are speculative and therefore qualify as a precedent for the admission of speculation as evidence. (Evidence: Dooku is 70 years old.
Evidence:He probably gained experience in that time.
Conclusion: His experience is > Revan's)
The highlighted portion would qualify as probability based evidence, and therefore speculation?I think the problem is our definition of evidence. I cannot, and have not disputed the nature of our debates. Induction is used. What I have contested is the idea that speculation can be used as evidence. By evidence I have always meant the starting facts one draws conclusions from. Dooku being 70 years old is one such fact. Where we diverge is at the next step, when conclusions are drawn. From the evidence given (his age) we infer an expansion of experience and skill. This is induction.
You want to call the conclusion drawn evidence. I do not. I would call it part of the argument- a conclusion drawn from the evidence that supports the thesis (in your example, the idea that Dooku > Revan).
To clarify: I'm not suggesting that the probability based premises should be labelled as evidence. The very facts with which you draw those premises out of would be the evidence. The probability based premises simply represents a middle ground between the very starting facts and the final conclusion, so as to draw a meaningful link between the two that reflects on the argument.
While Dooku's age is unassailable, as it is canon, that his age won him experience is an argument that can be attacked. Did he have chances to acrue experience? More or less than in a time of war? Etc.
Absolutely. That's why the probability only retains value when induction is used. The high probability that suggests that his age did win him experience would be meaningless when using deductive reasoning; however when arguing what is likely to be the case it does add to the likelihood that Dooku possesses more experience than Revan, which in turn adds to the likelihood that he would defeat Darth Revan in a lightsaber battle.
The evidence and conclusion remains the same, it just makes more sense to express the argument in a way that the premises are seen to directly reflect on the argument.
I would not be willing to call it evidence. It is not an axiom. It should not be treated as such.
Absolutely.
Another example is the Revan Problem. There is simply not enough evidence to draw any sort of conclusion about his powers, let alone one that can contribute to a coherent argument. Under your definition of 'evidence,' however, conclusions drawn from the vague corona of Revan's history do count as evidence. These cannot be correct; the canon evidence, the facts that we have are not sufficient to draw the conclusions about Revan that some [the fanbois] would like to. Your definition of evidence is rather looser than mine.
I'll let SW Legend address this.
Why? It is because such a loose definition, conclusions based on fact qualifying as evidence rather than arguments that may be questioned, allows far too great an opening for bias to intrude into these deliberations. Look at Legend: he decided that Revan was "kool" and then created arguments that support his decision. Although there is no canon that supports his assertions directly, his conclusions, based at least as much on his preference for Revan as on the FACTS, would qualify as evidence under your system.
This is where there appears to be a disagreement in methodology, and I'm not sure I fully understand your position, but to clarify, my methodology doesn't allow room for subjectivity. The probability based premises have to be based off of canon evidence, and sound probability has to be used. It's possible that bias may lead to some utilising the method incorrectly and drawing up incorrect probabilities, especially when not using precise statistical distributions and data collection methods but vague gut feelings or value judgements, but the methodology itself is fundamentally objective.
Originally posted by XER
Are you sure you're not thinking of the quote where it says Zannah's fight with Sarro would have ended a lot sooner if he (Sarro) had been equipped with the orbalisks?
Regardless, he demonstrates it throughout the duel from his very opening move, and even if he hadn't it's pretty obvious that he can afford to take hits to the body given that it has no real effect on him. [/B]
Originally posted by XER
I'll kindly ask you not to bring your Strawman tactics into this Charice.
I would oblige if you had any concept of "strawman". Seeing as you don't, I'm going to assume that you've conceded seeing as how you're resorting to semantics and just flat out arguing against canon. I would think that after almost 100 bans, you'd learn how to debate properly. Guess not.
Originally posted by XER
And you wonder why everyone flames you DH.... time to get back to the drawing board champ.
Yes, the drawing board of kicking your ass. And flames ME? This is coming from someone who's been banned almost 100 times and is virtually the butt of every joke on KMC? I always knew it was your psychological issues that kept you coming back here for more humiliation.