All of these are model outputs. He’s written extensively about all this stuff. You can disagree with his arguments, but your comments so far imply that he has no arguments, which is untrue.
Can you point me out how I’m implying this? Honestly. I do think that EY has ton of arguments (and I am a big big fan of his work). I just thing his arguments (in this topic) are wrong
I think you implied it by calling them assumptions in your first comment, and magical thinking in your second. Arguments you disagree with aren’t really either of those things.
There are, of necessity, a fair number of assumptions in the arguments he makes. Similarly, counter-arguments to his views also make a fair number of assumptions. Given that we are talking about something that has never happened and which could happen in a number of different ways, this is inevitable.
All of these are model outputs. He’s written extensively about all this stuff. You can disagree with his arguments, but your comments so far imply that he has no arguments, which is untrue.
Can you point me out how I’m implying this? Honestly. I do think that EY has ton of arguments (and I am a big big fan of his work). I just thing his arguments (in this topic) are wrong
I think you implied it by calling them assumptions in your first comment, and magical thinking in your second. Arguments you disagree with aren’t really either of those things.
Fair enough
There are, of necessity, a fair number of assumptions in the arguments he makes. Similarly, counter-arguments to his views also make a fair number of assumptions. Given that we are talking about something that has never happened and which could happen in a number of different ways, this is inevitable.