HBMC wrote:Stormbringer wrote:You do have to have some sort of objective comparison or a debate is pointless. And hard calculations are the most objective of evidence.
I think you're missing the point. What about the areas that have no possible way of obtaining/measuring "hard calculations"? Do we simply not debate it?
In training (whilst we're using that as example), there isn't a "terejoule" calc we can use to determine the winner. Not every debate has to have, nor can every debate
rely on calcs.
BYE
But to be debated at all, at least in a rational manner, something
must be compared.
You cannot compare two things if you have no *means* by which
to compare them. And there is no manner in which one can measure
these comparative aspects
subjectively, at least so long as one
hopes to make a reasonable argument therefrom. (IOW, there's
no such thing as a subjective measurement. By the very definition
of subjectivism, any kind of quantification is contradictory.)
Think about it. You're suggesting that something that can't
be readily assigned a measurement, like a terajoule of energy,
is still [properly] debatable, in the absence of "hard figures,"
correct?
Well, so what if we don't have a hard figure? Say, we don't know
that every Stormtrooper can deadlift 550 lbs. and fire ten bullseye
shots at 100m/3 seconds. Does that mean that ANY effort to
measure their effectiveness as soldiers is pointless?
No. You, and White, are in effect invoking the "all or nothing"
principle, which is a form of the false dilemma (specifically
false dichotomy) fallacy; i.e., "We can't measure this [easily],
so any effort at measuring it is pointless." It's also a hasty
generalization: when there are many variables in play, we
simply need a more comprehensive explanation, calc, or what-have-you
to account for everything.
Indeed, such seeming intangibles as the quality of a soldier's
training ARE measureable as they readily factor into the soldier's
survivability, kill ratios, etc., etc. Certainly, it's context-dependent,
but why could those things not be accounted for, too?
And no one ever said a figure had to be absolutely "perfect" to be
worthwhile or even VERY useful. That, too, is a fallacy.
As for Michael potentially putting words into White's mouth,
I disagree. I think Mike is simply trying to understand what it
is WR is talking about...quite frankly, it was not one of White's
most eloquent posts (yes, I've seen his others, and they were
far easier reads). We're left to guess at what he means because,
for whatever reason, White Rabbit was not clear enough. His
post raised more questions than it answered.
Please feel free to clarify any points on which I misinterpreted
your position(s). I read the thread but probably emphasized
a few points that really transcend the particular post to which
I responded.
)
