Would you mind pointing me to the post where I attempt to refute this? TIA
This thing that you did not attempt to refute. Hold that in your mind. Now, consider the thing that you didn’t understand. Put the thing that you didn’t refute in where the thing you didn’t understand was. You can now comment on Anna’s point in ‘good faith’.
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
And yet the staging example IS a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet there are no fundamental differences between the two examples, according to you.
“If you are interested in understanding the point ”
I am interested in understanding the point. And now the problem has become obvious: Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
“I will not engage further.”
It’s your choice, but I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
A good clarification and I’ll inject “the part of Anna’s position in this branch”.
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
You are wrong. I distinguish the acceptance of the premise from the validity of the intuitive leap to a particular conclusion.
Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
My position is highly specific, self contained, without self contradictions and really not even particularly novel.
I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
My description now would be far less complementary than that.
“I will not engage further.”
I hereby lower the confidence I place in my predictions of what I may post in the future. My intuition appears to be founded on an incomplete model of likely responses of others.
Sez I: Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson.
Sez you: That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap.
Clearly you were saying that the Arson example is not a leap by Anna’s standards.
Next, an earlier exchange between me and Anna:
Sez I: Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it’s not evidence of a staging.
Sez Anna: In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging.
So clearly the ransacking example is a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet you yourself admitted just a few posts back that fundamentally there is no difference between the 2 situations. Do I need to quote you?
It’s completely clear that Anna’s position (as interpreted by you) is self-contradictory.
“My description now would be far less complementary than that.”
Respectfully, I would suggest to you that’s because of your own cognitive dissonance. Put simply, don’t shoot the messenger.
This thing that you did not attempt to refute. Hold that in your mind. Now, consider the thing that you didn’t understand. Put the thing that you didn’t refute in where the thing you didn’t understand was. You can now comment on Anna’s point in ‘good faith’.
I have no idea what your point is. Let’s do it this way:
Please explain to me the fundamental difference between the following 2 claims :
(1) If there is a ransacked room but no valuables are missing, even though those valuables were in plain view, that is evidence of staging; and
(2) a burned house with traces of volatile flammables present is evidence of arson.
None.
If you are interested in understanding the point being made then there is more than enough information available to you. I will not engage further.
“None.”
That’s completely contradictory to your earlier statements. Before you explicitly said that that the arson example was NOT a leap by Anna’s standards.
And yet the staging example IS a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet there are no fundamental differences between the two examples, according to you.
“If you are interested in understanding the point ”
I am interested in understanding the point. And now the problem has become obvious: Your (apparent) position is self-contradictory.
“I will not engage further.”
It’s your choice, but I think it would be better for you to just acknowledge the contradiction in your position (actually Anna’s position as explained by you) rather than pretend to yourself that I am being disingenous.
A good clarification and I’ll inject “the part of Anna’s position in this branch”.
You are wrong. I distinguish the acceptance of the premise from the validity of the intuitive leap to a particular conclusion.
My position is highly specific, self contained, without self contradictions and really not even particularly novel.
My description now would be far less complementary than that.
I hereby lower the confidence I place in my predictions of what I may post in the future. My intuition appears to be founded on an incomplete model of likely responses of others.
“You are wrong.”
Lol, that’s nonsense. Here is our exchange:
Sez I: Well, what if a house has been reduced to a pile of charred debris and traces of some volatile flammable liquid are found there? It seems to me that by Anna’s reasoning, it would be a “leap” to say that this is evidence of arson.
Sez you: That would be evidence of arson. Anna’s reasoning would not call this a leap.
Clearly you were saying that the Arson example is not a leap by Anna’s standards.
Next, an earlier exchange between me and Anna:
Sez I: Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it’s not evidence of a staging.
Sez Anna: In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging.
So clearly the ransacking example is a “leap” by Anna’s standards.
And yet you yourself admitted just a few posts back that fundamentally there is no difference between the 2 situations. Do I need to quote you?
It’s completely clear that Anna’s position (as interpreted by you) is self-contradictory.
“My description now would be far less complementary than that.”
Respectfully, I would suggest to you that’s because of your own cognitive dissonance. Put simply, don’t shoot the messenger.