UT, it probably would have worked if you had actually written it all down as you went along. Did you really just try to keep it all in your head?

Yes. But even writing it down isn't good enough, because there are more important variables than you can even think of that you'll never write down.

It seems like he was neglecting external factors -- eg; apparently you were simply a better player than him.

     Well, yes, he was. When that was suggested he argued that he was breaking it down to specific movements on the game, not the overall match.
     He was working off a specific plan and reflex. I was just working off reflex. I didn't need to know all the stats, I learned through cause and effect. I couldn't logicaly explain why I won. I didn't see that it was necessary. He could explain, in great detail, every movement and the reason for it. All that did for him was cost a lot of quarters. This being said, he was pretty damn good at the game. I was just better.
     My point was linked to what UT said earlier.      I've always thought the best response to these people that want to question how we know we exist is to smack them in the head. Existence will become apparent to them quickly when they are in pain, and fear more of it. It's silly bullshit. As I said, mental masterbation.
     At some point you have to work with the info you have, and to hell with what you don't know. Logic must be tempered with reason or it can be in the way as much as it can help. And reason is relative, so in everday life you've got a lot of balls in the air. Tough. Do the best you can with what you have, hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Even if logic is the best tool available for systematizing and correlating truth, it doesn't make it appropriate to every situation. Like buying a house ... there are visceral factors there that it would be absurd to try to anaylize. Or playing Street Fighter, where the sheer amount of data that has to corraborated makes the task impossible.

The value of the tool is the realm of the ideal, where the discussion lives in a defined system. You can set about assuming the "if" part of the statment, prove the "then" part. After that, the task becomes proving that the "if" part is valid in the real world.

My point in all of this is to avoid throwing away the tools. Thinking specifically of "he who is not named" in the politics section. Instead of fighting the duel of data, throwing in fact after fact, it would seem useful to grant the data, but force him to argue the logical structure that makes the data mean what he says it does.

This would hold true in a lot of cases. The data is not always the important thing. The rationality of the case built on the data is often much weaker than the collection of facts.

-sm

     Well, it sounds like most of us are in agreement here, even if we all phrase it differently. Except maybe Juju, the jury's still out on him. Most of us seem to think logic is important, but falls short of being a final arbiter of truth, or an arbiter of THE truth.
     Like I said earlier, logic must be tempered by reason.

What the.. Jury still out?! Why I oughta..

I seem to remember saying something like this:

     LOL, all right, I apologize. I was still thinking about you suggesting UT write what would have to be an insanely long list down instead of keeping it in his head. Or just making a judgment call. I take it back. My mistake.

. . . and this concludes our broadcast day.

Tune in tomorrow for such threads as:

"Is that my nickel?"
"Calculating the point spread for the Democratic primaries"
"Kant vs. Carrot Top: the moral imperative for the death penalty"

and

"Nominating Whit, Bruce, Juju, and UT for the new Survivor:Pittsburgh"

     As long as I keep top billing, I'm in!