tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114758463350772683..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Sabatino gets some clarificationVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1147722848848985322006-05-15T12:54:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:54:00.000-07:00I'm definitely one of the people who think it's ve...I'm definitely one of the people who think it's very easy to wildly misuse probability theory to argue for believing the Res. It won't surprise me in the least if WLC ends up doing so, when the transcript comes in. (I would actuallly be a little surprised and pleased if he makes a properly limited use of the technique, but I'm not expecting it.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Having said that: neither would I call a misuse of the tactic "so far beyond the realm of rationality" that giving WLC further scope to air it would be "conceding way too much" to him. (I'd be even less inclined to call it that if I _wasn't_ familiar with the tactic and its limitations.)<BR/><BR/>And one argument, ain't "some of his arguments". {g}<BR/><BR/>Even making allowance for a typical shape of rhetorical appeal, I still don't see this being a sufficiently strong reason for BE to refuse to do something that would nominally be advantageous to him. I suspect there's something else accounting for it. (Don't know what yet; but strong rhetoric naturally raises curiosity about why it should be put so strongly. Could still be the fairly mundane explanation I proposed a while back, though. {shrug})Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com