I don't mind trying to appealing to your request but have already done this where you don't see the agreement. It's like if I claimed the both Joe and Cheryl are good and valid people but you think that somehow a likeness of these individuals are exclusive. So you try to prove to me that Joe is a good and valid person, something I already know. I point to the fact that you must be thinking that a belief in Joe necessarily requires an opposing exclusion of belief in Cheryl by your intent to try to prove that somehow I don't understand Joe's validity.Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Why do you keep referring to scenarios which are not the Monty Hall scenario under discussion? If you would confine yourself to simple yes/no answers to my questions we might be able to get somewhere but once you start qualifying those answers we are no longer talking about the same thing.
I want to do this step by step in the simplest way possible.
Do you agree that in MY experiment if I place a single coin under a single cup you have a 1/3 chance of guessing which cup I placed it under. Forget about what comes next and just answer yes or no.
Then I DO try to prove that Joe is valid for your sake. But you can't relate to my method(s) of proving anything one way or the other and so keep demanding that I follow your lead. When I use all the various different approaches (different methods), I'm trying to demonstrate that I understand you but I keep getting rebuffed by you declaring that ONLY ONE way will suffice to prove to you that Joe is a valid person.
dionisos is doing the same thing when he demands that I only appeal to proving to him anything by opting for one particular route (method) to get to some goal. But the very fact that one is so restrictive to only see one unique route by default begs that no other such route exists.
Given town A to begin with, and aiming to get to town B has a road, R1, in which you and most people are familiar with. I argue that there is another Rx that exists to get to town B AND that there are also other towns that exist, like town C, in which we can go to that provide the same VALUE for seeking any town by meaning.
For instance, if your reason for going to town B is because it has a concert performance by your favorite artist, I might be noticing that this same artist is performing in another town even closer. But you deny both that such a town exists AND that no other route is possible to go regardless. So all you want me to do is to validate your preferred restriction with absolution and stop talking about these other towns or routes.
So be it. I'm not the one who is denying your right to your given goals or the routes. But you are demanding me to both AGREE with you absolutely AND shut up about any other matters because they are not important to you. But I began this thread. And while I am welcoming of your presence, you are coming to MY party and demanding that I abandon it to come to your home to party instead. I don't mind your own invite. The problem is, you are spoiling my party to divert others to go to yours instead and it acts to invalidate me as a person.
I like both Joe and Cheryl. And if you come to my party but don't like Cheryl's presence, you either have to depart without prejudice or treat me and my company with the same respect I'd grant you. Otherwise, you are appearing to offend me. You apologized and I can accept this. But if I'm complaining that you are stepping on my toes and you keep apologizing but STILL step on my toes repeatedly, how am I to interpret even your apologies as being sincere?