Originally posted by NemesioSurely, this is still preferable to the catastrophic alternative of admitting he is wrong, confused, or both.
Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt sounds familiar, but I just can't place where you said this before. Ironically (but certainly not surprisingly), your loyalty always seems to be placed with those whose views are closer to your own. I guess fair play isn't a concept with which you are familiar. Go figure.
Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint, you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
It sounds familiar, but I just can't place where you said this before. Ironically (but certainly not surprisingly), your loyalty always seems to be placed with those whose views are closer to your own. I guess fair play isn't a concept with which you are familiar. Go figure.
Shameful.
Pawny
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe only way you'd get a true 2/3 type of system is broaden the
Yes! That's the salient feature of the process governing the outcomes.
In short, your first guess will be wrong with probability 2/3. That means the prize lies behind one of other two doors with probability 2/3. Eliminate one of those other two doors (an instance of arbitrarily repartitioning the outcomes as I was describing before) and the u ...[text shortened]... this then to see if you have any unresolved issues, and to see if Freaky remains an idiot.
scope to a simple 1, >1, or 0. When we start digging into the what
1 God, or which if not all >1 of gods there are do we run into issues
where the views about each could be wrong. Defining the outcome of
getting it right or wrong is also beyond the simple too, unless it is
clearly spelled out on what we are talking about, then it is either right
or wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't confuse them with facts, though. They prefer to muddy all the waters.
The only way you'd get a true 2/3 type of system is broaden the
scope to a simple 1, >1, or 0. When we start digging into the what
1 God, or which if not all >1 of gods there are do we run into issues
where the views about each could be wrong. Defining the outcome of
getting it right or wrong is also beyond the simple too, unless it is
clearly spelled out on what we are talking about, then it is either right
or wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloHey, LJ: get your facts straight, will ya? Herr doctor is the self-proclaimed internationally-known expert of all experts on probability. If you don't believe him, just ask him. Chances are, you'll get a response of some kind.
After seamlessly explicating mechanistic materialism and the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Freaky is now going to teach us all something about probability?
I would think the following conditional probability is high: P(He's laughing His ass off | God exists).