mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 17:53 |
|
licker wrote: |
Quote: | Is +AV ever worth it |
The answer is no, and that answer does not need any qualification because, again, the answer is just no.
People who answer yes have to defend their reasons for why/when it's worth it, but people who answer no, because it's a universal no, really don't have to.
So again.
No.
/thread |
The answer is probably no. But that kind of reasoning makes no sense at all. |
_________________
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 18:06 |
|
mekutata wrote: | that kind of reasoning makes no sense at all. |
Of course it makes sense:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Kryten, bghandras, smallman and Tricktickler already refuted that hypothesis anyway. |
_________________ There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 22:30 |
|
Tricktickler wrote: | .. Though there are some exceptions, a zombie with Block, Tackle, Pro, Dauntless for example is not the best player. Then I would rather take the inducements. |
What if he has guard too? https://fumbbl.com/p/player?player_id=8099684 |
_________________ “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 22:51 |
|
mekutata wrote: | licker wrote: |
Quote: | Is +AV ever worth it |
The answer is no, and that answer does not need any qualification because, again, the answer is just no.
People who answer yes have to defend their reasons for why/when it's worth it, but people who answer no, because it's a universal no, really don't have to.
So again.
No.
/thread |
The answer is probably no. But that kind of reasoning makes no sense at all. |
It makes perfect sense. You have to make the assumption that you're going for optimal builds, but if you're not going for optimal builds then it quite literally makes no sense to ask this kind of question.
What exactly is the goal of this question anyway? To get an answer? Well the answer is no. It's been given multiple times by multiple people. Those who have tried to argue for +AV have had to put their logic through contortions or make the claim that it's not optimal, but it's still 'fun'.
Great. Fun is a worthwhile pursuit, but it's tedious to answer questions always having to caveat them with...
Quote: | If you don't care about winning then take whatever stupid skills or stats you want. |
+AV falls in that category. 100% of the time. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 23:01 |
|
This is utterly hilarious.
Completely incorrect though, as we would expect coming from a mindless AI.
When you make a claim to the positive it is indeed incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. It it never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 23:52 |
|
licker wrote: | When you make a claim to the positive it is indeed incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. It is never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
Uh, the definition of 'burden of proof' says nothing about positive or negative claims.
"There is a God" is a claim.
"There is no God" is also a claim.
Both claimants bear a burden of proof. Negative claims are harder though, so be careful with those. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
  Posted:
Apr 22, 2017 - 23:53 |
|
licker wrote: | It it never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
Prove it.
|
_________________ "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 00:13 |
|
fidius wrote: | licker wrote: | When you make a claim to the positive it is indeed incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. It is never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
Uh, the definition of 'burden of proof' says nothing about positive or negative claims.
"There is a God" is a claim.
"There is no God" is also a claim.
Both claimants bear a burden of proof. Negative claims are harder though, so be careful with those. |
Negative claims are largely impossible, that's the point.
If you do science anyway.
If you do random internet arguments... |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 00:20 |
|
fidius wrote: |
Uh, the definition of 'burden of proof' says nothing about positive or negative claims.
|
Our BB2 King does not even critical thinking, Fidius. Note that substantiating and providing reasons are not exactly "proving" in a formal sense. Even if it did, there would be ways to prove negative existentials, e.g. by exhaustion. Naive falsificationnism kinda forgot about that one.
At best our King could appeal to hypothesis testing. But then he'd have to admit that his claim is only a conjecture, that the framework allows for induction, and that his anecdata are thin. Perhaps even one day he'll have to admit that it has been refuted not long ago. Who cares anyway - it's not as if Tricktickler won any BB2 ring, is it?
Don't tell him about the prolepsis trick. He'd have to admit he fails to keep his promises over and over again. |
_________________ There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 00:23 |
|
licker wrote: | fidius wrote: | licker wrote: | When you make a claim to the positive it is indeed incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. It is never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
Uh, the definition of 'burden of proof' says nothing about positive or negative claims.
"There is a God" is a claim.
"There is no God" is also a claim.
Both claimants bear a burden of proof. Negative claims are harder though, so be careful with those. |
Negative claims are largely impossible, that's the point.
If you do science anyway.
If you do random internet arguments... |
Of course the initial example of:
There is a God
VS
There is no God.
Not a really good example since both stances are based in 'Faith' which by definition means you can not actually prove your POV, thus, it is taken as faith that your position is correct. |
_________________ Comish of the: |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 00:56 |
|
I feel like this thread has been a bit derailed. Or is that just me? |
_________________ I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 00:59 |
|
PainState wrote: | licker wrote: | fidius wrote: | licker wrote: | When you make a claim to the positive it is indeed incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. It is never incumbent upon anyone to attempt to make a negative proof. |
Uh, the definition of 'burden of proof' says nothing about positive or negative claims.
"There is a God" is a claim.
"There is no God" is also a claim.
Both claimants bear a burden of proof. Negative claims are harder though, so be careful with those. |
Negative claims are largely impossible, that's the point.
If you do science anyway.
If you do random internet arguments... |
Of course the initial example of:
There is a God
VS
There is no God.
Not a really good example since both stances are based in 'Faith' which by definition means you can not actually prove your POV, thus, it is taken as faith that your position is correct. |
It's a fine example, the problem is that there is no burden of proof for the negative in that case because it is not a falsifiable claim (or hypothesis).
It's a common failure among people who are not scientifically literate though.
But, if you leave the realm of science, and try to use the same language, that's the real failure, not so much one of comprehension, just one of improper language. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 01:22 |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 01:40 |
|
licker wrote: | Negative claims are largely impossible, that's the point. |
So the fact that they're largely impossible means they carry no burden of proof? That's the "logic" of the internet troll I'm afraid.
Personally, I think "never +AV" is a perfectly reasonable position. We are after all talking about subjective value. But a little discussion would be nice. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
  Posted:
Apr 23, 2017 - 03:17 |
|
Grod wrote: | I feel like this thread has been a bit derailed. Or is that just me? |
It has been since the "/thread" has been declared to shut down the thread. As if hypotheses were voiced to shut down their own testing. Speaking of which, Popperians would insist in specifying falsifiers, i.e. conditions under which the hypothesis under consideration can be falsified. If they can't, so much the worse for our King's recent claim of doing science.
All this has little to do with the principle according to which you back up your damn claims. Instead of turning this into a Toulmin method tutorial, I'll just link to the Iron Pigs, an experiment by another guy who doesn't hold any BB2 ring. |
_________________ There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %23, %2017 - %06:%Apr; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
| |