Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 03 2007,07:11)|
|Quote (Rob @ Aug. 02 2007,11:46)|
|Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 02 2007,06:52)|
|kairosfocus: I am pointing out that the issue hinges crucially on how one defines the suspicious-activity tail, and what has happened in PO’s discussion, is that he expanded a 1 in 50 billion shot to nearly 2 in 5.|
Which, of course, is not what Olofsson did. Kairosfocus is incapable of reading what Olofsson actually wrote, even on something as simple as defining a rejection region and then using a 22-19 split—as an illustrative example.
kairosfocus is adamant:
|The 22+-D trail will have 38 or so % of the holes indeed, but the 40+ D configs will have a much, much lower fraction, about 1 in 50 billions.|
Which is exactly what Olofsson's paper says. I don't think kairos will ever get a clue, unless his unsupervised child reads the paper and explains it to him.
And it just gets worse. Kairosfocus goes on and on and on explaining why he is right. As he can't get past the simple and obvious point that Olofsson was providing an example, he is hopeless for any extended discussion. And Olofsson does seem like a very approachable teacher—though so very young in the ways of The Argument Regarding Design.
|Olofsson: He has even gone so far as to cut one of my sentences in half (in his post #68) to support his quixotic mission. (I believe some refer to such pratice as “quote mining”; hasn’t happened to me before). If you read the entire paragraph it is clear that I mean relevant in that example, not in the actual Caputo case.|
But kairosfocus does issue this apology:
|kairosfocus: (I freely confess to highlighting the sometimes subtle [and I suspect inadvertent] rhetorical implications of how he built up his case, to bringing out how he perceives design thinkers and how that distorts the reading of what we have said, and to my challenging the substance of the case, with special reference to the Caputo court case of the EF in successful action.)|
Kairosfocus apologizes for highlighting subtlety—quite the concession.
In my experience, when you get your Latin wrong, it is best to issue an apology in the best Latin you can muster, while smiling and nodding so that they might take pity on a hapless foreigner.
Stultorum calami carbones moenia chartae.
Ah. Post-modern thinking at it's finest:
I have countered an argument that I found by "deconstructing" the actual intent of the paper Prof. Olofsson wrote and have argued against that interpretation. The fact that neither Prof. Olofsson nor any reasonable reader of his paper could have found the implicit, subtle, and inadvertent message I have uncovered and argued against is no reason that my argument is fallacious!