A few years ago, in 1999, both Robin Ventura and Rickey Henderson joined the Mets, and both had a good season, along with the rest of the team, as they mananged to make it to the playoffs. Someone on a message board, who wasn’t a Mets fan, was trying to argue why the team as a whole wouldn’t do very well in 2000, and as part of his argument pointed to the year or two prior to 1999, in which Ventura and Henderson didn’t play nearly as well. He tried to make the case, that since they hadn’t played well in those years, there was no way they could repeat their 1999 success in 2000. In other words, past success in 1999 was a good indication of future failure.
:smack:
Last winter, a local tv station’s news team here in NYC decided to investigate the possibility of getting sick by taking the subway. They took four cultures from various subway surfaces and had them analyzed in the lab. Now, they stated up front, that due to the low number of samples taken, their test was not scientifically valid, and should not be used to determine the relative safety of the subway. As it turned out, none of the samples came back positive for any virus or harmful bacteria. Their final conclusion: even though there was no scientific basis for believing so, you, their listener, might feel a little more peace of mind when taking the subway that winter.
My grandmother went to see A Time To Kill several years back, when it was in the theatres.
When she came home (I lived with her at the time), I asked her how the movie had been. She’s one of those people who, when asked about a movie she’s seen, tells the end immediately. For example, she might say something like, “Oh, it was good–the cancer killed him in the end…”
I’m guessing everyone around here who’s gonna see A Time To Kill has seen it already, but just in case, I’ll issue a
SPOILER ALERT
Anyway. So she’s telling me about how the Samuel Jackson character (who killed the two men who raped his little girl) gets acquitted in the end, and then she says:
“…and I think justice was served, because I don’t care how drunk those two men were, they should NOT have raped that little girl…”
…wait for it…
“…they should have raped a WOMAN.”
:smack: :smack: :smack:
“Um, Nana…” I calmly explained, “I think the point is that they should not have raped ANYONE.”
She agreed, but stated that a woman’s body (as opposed to a little girl’s) “would have been able to hold a man”, and that a woman’s innocence would not have been stolen via a rape (as was the case with the little girl).
Oy.
My friends tell me that the movie of my life should begin with my character on a therapist’s couch, relaying this story. :rolleyes:
I’ve got a hand of five cards. Either if there’s a king in the hand, there’s an ace in the hand, or if there’s a queen in the hand, there’s an ace in the hand. There’s a king in the hand. Is there an ace in the hand?
Most people will probably say yes. In fact, that’s what I said at first. But the correct answer is “not necessarily”.
Ultrafilter, I don’t think I’m getting this. Let me get this straight. We’ve got 2 possibilities:
[list=1]
[li]If the hand contains a King, it contains an Ace.[/li][li]If the hand contains a Queen, it contains an Ace.[/li][/list=1]
What we’ve been given is:[ul]
[li]The hand contains a King[/ul][/li]With these conditions, why is the answer to the question “Is there an Ace in the hand?” “Not necessarily”, rather than “Yes”? I’m assuming the number of cards in the hand isn’t relevant and one of the two conditions above must be true.
I’m not being snarky – I just can’t resist problems like this and I’m trying to figure it out. Think of it as a puppy with a new toy or a woman panting with desire, whichever your preference.
The way I read this, it sounds like only one or the other of those two “if” statements is true. Therefore, if it is the second clause that is true (“if there’s a queen in the hand, there’s an ace in the hand”), then the presence of a king says nothing about the other cards. It’s only if the first clause is true that there must then also be an ace. Since we don’t know which of those two statements is really true, the answer “not necessarily” sounds right to me.
Darwin’s Finch is dead on. There are two separate conditionals there, and only one of them need be true. It’s possible that only the presence of a queen requires the presence of an ace, and that the king is irrelevant.
I picked this up from my cognitive psych textbook. Even the researchers who developed the statement were thrown for a loop when a computer gave them the correct answer.
I agree with glee that the language used is a bit atypical, and might account for some confusion.
Oh, and CJ? I’m definitely thinking in the latter terms. If only my logic puzzles actually produced that type of reaction…1
Is this exactly how your book stated it? First year logic students parse sentences like this just like Dick and Jane, but I actually think its a bit unfair to spring something like this on the unprepared just to prove they are mixed up by it.
What is wrong with that? Using a landmark to reference a location. ::shrugs::
Ok it may be a TEMPORARY landmark but. . . . Normaly it is a good idea to mark the location of multiple vechicals in the vicinity so as to ensure that at least a few remain when the time comes to find your vechical again, but heck, other then that. . . . ???
The problem lies in the English language. “Or” usually means, “Either this, or that, or both”, but it can also mean “Either this, or that, but not both.” Ask your local mathmatician about exclusive-or. I’m sure (s)he’d love to tell you about it.
In an abortion discussion, I tried to convey that I personally am not certain whether a fetus is alive or not.
The response I got back was “If it’s not alive, what is it? A lizard? It has to be alive, if it isn’t a lizard.”
When I asked him to clarify, he repeated it. Several times, in increasing volume, as though that answered all questions definitively.
It was the most bizarre argument I’d ever heard. (This person had many problems with analogies and logic and a very poor grip on facts, but that one was the weirdest.)
…despite the Clinton administration doing next to nothing to further any signifigant liberal causes in eight years…
…despite Al Gore going up against the weakest, most easily beatable opponent imaginable in the 2000 election…
…despite him being able to take on Dubya three times, head-to-head, no meddling third-party candidate to divide his focus…
…despite his almost complete agreement with Dubya on every meaningful issue imaginable…
…despite the constant fears of a Bush Supreme Court appointee (which, incredibly enough, became Gore’s biggest selling point)…
…despite the infamous “butterfly ballot” which gave Pat Buchanan a fistful of undeserved votes…
…despite a dismal voter turnout in the ballpark of 55% (and this after months of Everyone Must Vote For Gore Or The World Is Doomed hysteria)…
…despite Gore getting almost half a million more votes than Bush…
…Ralph Nader is to blame for Gore losing the election.
…DESPITE the fact that Gore rightfully won, and he’d be the President right now had the current Supreme Court not arbitrarily ordered a cancellation of the hand recount!
Ever get the feeling that some people really need to listen more and scream less?
I don’t know if the word “favorite” should be used in this thread, since it implies encouragement. :rolleyes:
But as long as we’re talking politics, I’ll nominate “George W. Bush is indeed well-qualified to be President! Just look at his high approval ratings!”
I’ve seen a couple of gems based on misheard words:
Several years ago, a well-known British professor wrote an article admitting that one of his articles was completely invalid. (Sorry, no cite). He was writing about a John Wayne movie, in which Wayne said (or so the professor thought) that the situation was ‘feudal.’ The professor leapt on this comment and built a whole chapter of a book around it. Several years later an American colleague pointed out that Wayne actually said ‘futile,’ not feudal. [smackie]
While in Berlin I read a front page article, in German, about an air disaster in America (again no cite, I know, I’m bad). The journalist also wrote a page-long opinion piece on the American psyche, based on the reaction to the tragedy. The crux of his argument was that Americans see God as more active, more involved in everyday life than in Europe. Where did he get this idea from? What did he mention several times, and deconstruct linguistically? The way he thought the Americans were describing the disaster as being due to an ‘active God.’ … [smackie]
)
)