I agree, just wasn’t willing to put it forward that bluntly.
Polycarp:
I guess all we can do is point out what we think is extraordinary, and if the other person doesn’t agree, we’re screwed. In that case, it’s only fair to at least try to pick apart the logic first, before requiring a cite. (and more fun, as Spiritus said)
I’m not aware of what Captain Picard has said on this subject, but I would be interested to know, if you wouldn’t mind a quick synopsis. Oh wait, Potter…
nope, still don’t know
And here I thought it took both the request and this entire thread.
What do you think?
You’re never going to get a final ruling on which assertions need support and which don’t. But we’ve got lots of smart people here, and they’ll let you know when they want backup. It all comes down to who you want to convince, and whether or not they are willing to take your assertions at face value.
Realistically, there’s only so much you can figure out through logic. When dealing with the real world, every step from things we know for sure is a little bit weaker, as small discrepancies between logic and reality pile up. Instinctively, I knew that the typical gang leader’s attitudes were a long way from my experience, and I fully expected that they were a long way from Lib’s, too.
I could have been wrong; it could have been Lib, not Poly, who had worked with troubled youths. If so, his telling me so would have backed his claim. But absent that, either one of us who made a claim about gang leaders’ attitudes about anything would have been way out on a limb, if we were doing it on the basis of logic alone.
Second Place (tie), Most Valuable Poster (GD) Second Place, Best Scientific/Expert Explanations (GD)
Not that it’s gone to my head or anything.
