2013/6/30 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > I've argued.... I have argued .... > > My next arg .... > > I then have argued .... >
This is a long chain of reasoning. Each link may seem solid to you, but even if you are 80% right at each of four steps, by the end of the chain you're only 40% right. Yet you'd never realize that if you refuse to discuss any alternate lines of logic until people have discredited at least one of the links in your chain. > > As such, I disregard.... > That's anti-evidence armor. Relatively discounting a line of evidence is one thing; disregarding it another. > > The sort of experiment that would prove me wrong is the widespread adoption > of Condorcet-like or Approval-like rule for important single-winner > elections in the USA, > How convenient, that the only thing that could prove you wrong is something unlikely to happen soon. If you want to take a scientific outlook, you have to think harder about how to get new, relevant data. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
