Posted: Feb 01, 2012 11:43 pm
This isn't a "glaring error in his argument". And there is no "formula" to make that assignment, there doesn't have to be.Byron wrote:Yup. As I said a few pages back, values have to be assigned to questions without a dataset ... and Carrier offers no formula to make that assignment.
The sad thing is, he could write a whole book on this question without spotting this glaring error in his argument. This is precisely why academia employs the peer-review process. It's not, as Carrier seems to think, there to block his brilliant theories. It's there to save him from making an arse of himself.
"Objective" advantage? Do you mean that it would be absurd if anybody claimed that using "70%" were more objective than "probably"?Byron wrote:I'd think it was eccentric, but not absurd. I would however think it was absurd if they claimed that those numbers conferred any objective advantage to their subjective assessment.