Originally posted by Silent Master
I don't think you are really using Occam's, as IMO the proper use of Occam's would be. If a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.Your argument is IMO more along the lines of "it's Superman, thus it had to be a pure strength feat"
Interesting. What do you propose is a more logical reason then, knowing what we know?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, I don't know how he did it. however IMO a proper use of Occam's is; if a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.
I don't think that's correct applied here, while agreed that there could be a vast number of methods in how Superman shifted a T-plate (eg he built a machine, he's prayed it to move, it moved by itself and he lied taking the credit etc. etc. etc.) the simpler "he used his vast strength" is what Occam's would dictate, as the simpler theory is what Occam's is all about.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think that's correct applied here, while agreed that there could be a vast number of methods in how Superman shifted a T-plate (eg he built a machine, he's prayed it to move, it moved by itself and he lied taking the credit etc. etc. etc.) the simpler "he used his vast strength" is what Occam's would dictate, as the simpler theory is what Occam's is all about.
If a person doesn't have the feats to support performing the feat via method A, how can the simpler answer be, he used method A?
Originally posted by Robtard
That would also be a strength feat, no?
Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.
Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"
Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"
Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.
He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.
Originally posted by Silent MasterThat's faulty logic. It's all about the writer's intentions. How the writer believed Superman did it is exactly how Superman did it.
If the person has zero shown feats of strength to indicate they could pull off a feat, then Occam's razor would point to the off-panel feat not being done by strength.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.
News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.