[EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

[Jameson Quinn]

2013/6/30 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

> I've argued....   I have argued ....
>
> My next arg ....
>
> I then have argued ....
>

This is a long chain of reasoning. Each link may seem solid to you, but
even if you are 80% right at each of four steps, by the end of the chain
you're only 40% right. Yet you'd never realize that if you refuse to
discuss any alternate lines of logic until people have discredited at least
one of the links in your chain.


>
> As such, I disregard....
>

That's anti-evidence armor. Relatively discounting a line of evidence is
one thing; disregarding it another.

>
>
The sort of experiment that would prove me wrong is the widespread adoption
> of Condorcet-like or Approval-like rule for important single-winner
> elections in the USA,
>

How convenient, that the only thing that could prove you wrong is something
unlikely to happen soon. If you want to take a scientific outlook, you have
to think harder about how to get new, relevant data.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130701/95afae15/attachment-0004.htm>