you have to show that they are the same as, or worse than, the alternative course of action.
No I don’t. That WOULD be the way to go IF the argument was “Academia is a better place to meet people than on the street.” But that wasn’t the disagreement. My original suggestion was “If your IQ is high enough, it can be really hard to find people to bond with.” the counterargument was “Academia is a playground (implying that it’s a solution, not just that it’s better.)” and my rebuttal was “Academia is not a solution to this problem.” Don’t straw man me.
All I had to do is explain why academia wasn’t a solution. Since you seem to agree:
showing that the odds are still bad...
I am going to guess that I’ve convinced you of my point that academia isn’t a solution. Have I?
If the problem is “X is hard”, then “X is easier if you do Y” is good information, and “Y only improves X-easiness by so much” is no rebuttal. Arguing about whether it’s “a solution” is semantics. Also, you’re reading way too much into that ‘playground’.
If the problem is “X is hard”, then “X is easier if you do Y” is good information
If that were true, then concepts like these would not exist:
an ineffective strategy
false hope
false sense of security
a waste of time
If spending 5 dollars on a small chance of a good thing is a Pascal’s mugging, the suggestion that spending tens of thousands of dollars plus multiple years in academia is a good idea for rare people to meet teach other is an all out Pascal’s burglary.
Your arguments are getting ridiculous. I’m ending this discussion.
No I don’t. That WOULD be the way to go IF the argument was “Academia is a better place to meet people than on the street.” But that wasn’t the disagreement. My original suggestion was “If your IQ is high enough, it can be really hard to find people to bond with.” the counterargument was “Academia is a playground (implying that it’s a solution, not just that it’s better.)” and my rebuttal was “Academia is not a solution to this problem.” Don’t straw man me.
All I had to do is explain why academia wasn’t a solution. Since you seem to agree:
I am going to guess that I’ve convinced you of my point that academia isn’t a solution. Have I?
If the problem is “X is hard”, then “X is easier if you do Y” is good information, and “Y only improves X-easiness by so much” is no rebuttal. Arguing about whether it’s “a solution” is semantics. Also, you’re reading way too much into that ‘playground’.
Yes, it really is a rebuttal and a good one too, for sane values of “so much”, “hard” and “Y”.
If that were true, then concepts like these would not exist:
an ineffective strategy
false hope
false sense of security
a waste of time
If spending 5 dollars on a small chance of a good thing is a Pascal’s mugging, the suggestion that spending tens of thousands of dollars plus multiple years in academia is a good idea for rare people to meet teach other is an all out Pascal’s burglary.
Your arguments are getting ridiculous. I’m ending this discussion.