View Single Post
07-31-2014, 11:17 AM
vadim sharifijanov
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,165
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Can't follow your logic here. If there is reasonable doubt about the "facts, evidence, orthodoxy" then what they suggest is not so clear anymore in the first place.

Two sides of the same coin, whether you say Howe is not as good as we think or Jágr is better than we think. So here is the argument worded as a positive claim: The talent pool in Jágr's time was larger than in Howe's time, therefore it's likely Jágr is better than we usually think when we compare him to Howe.

This I have to agree with.
i guess my point is there's nothing wrong with points one and two. it's good to challenge orthodoxy, and yes a case can be positively made that jagr's era makes his dominance look smaller than it would have in other decades. but without the still missing third part, none of that constitutes an actual argument. they are just preconditions for an argument that hasn't yet been made.

rather than saying 1 + 2 allows me to argue 3, which proves 4 (where 3 is an accounting for how jagr's accomplishments compare relative to howe's). this thread has looked like this: 1 + 2, therefore 4. the missing term 3 makes it an insinuation rather than an argument.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote