Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9025953" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I don't think that's particularly accurate with some of them; it just means that their predictive capability has some wiggle in it.&nbsp; That's true of a lot of fields with a lot of moving parts (try to argue how &quot;predictive&quot; parts of medical science are, yet I doubt people would claim they do not have expertise and are not useful in that regard when viewed in a statistical, rather than deterministic fashion).The fact that they've chosen to do that does not in any way tell me it cannot be done.&nbsp; It just says they haven't chosen to do so in any particularly notable way.I don't consider some of those particular unlikely.&nbsp; They may not have been the events of greatest probability, but that's not the same thing; as I mentioned, in a game context, they'd have been on the table, just not the most likely.&nbsp; After all, a specialist in sword fighting will tell you what's likely to happen, not what will happen; that's why there's die rolls in combat resolution.&nbsp; That doesn't make his expertise irrelevant, it just means there's a lot of moving parts, some of them below the level of resolution you're likely to look at.&nbsp; This is not appreciably different except as to scale.You have not provided me enough information at this point to even set up a group of possible results meaningfully.&nbsp; That does not mean I believe I could not do so with a clearer understanding of the situation.I still maintain they very much could work such things out with an understanding of history to the degree of doing as I've suggested by making a set of probabilities and then generating from them.&nbsp; The fact few will bother does not make that less true and does not seem to have anything to do with your premise.&nbsp; You seem to be arguing that it is not done (which is generally true but I do not believe can be shown to be universally true) and cannot be done (which I neither believe is true nor do I believe you have shown to be true).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9025953, member: 7026617"] I don't think that's particularly accurate with some of them; it just means that their predictive capability has some wiggle in it. That's true of a lot of fields with a lot of moving parts (try to argue how "predictive" parts of medical science are, yet I doubt people would claim they do not have expertise and are not useful in that regard when viewed in a statistical, rather than deterministic fashion). The fact that they've chosen to do that does not in any way tell me it cannot be done. It just says they haven't chosen to do so in any particularly notable way. I don't consider some of those particular unlikely. They may not have been the events of greatest probability, but that's not the same thing; as I mentioned, in a game context, they'd have been on the table, just not the most likely. After all, a specialist in sword fighting will tell you what's [I]likely[/I] to happen, not what [I]will[/I] happen; that's why there's die rolls in combat resolution. That doesn't make his expertise irrelevant, it just means there's a lot of moving parts, some of them below the level of resolution you're likely to look at. This is not appreciably different except as to scale. You have not provided me enough information at this point to even set up a group of possible results meaningfully. That does not mean I believe I could not do so with a clearer understanding of the situation. I still maintain they very much could work such things out with an understanding of history to the degree of doing as I've suggested by making a set of probabilities and then generating from them. The fact few will bother does not make that less true and does not seem to have anything to do with your premise. You seem to be arguing that it is not done (which is generally true but I do not believe can be shown to be universally true) and cannot be done (which I neither believe is true nor do I believe you have shown to be true). [/QUOTE]

Verification