Monkeys get a silver in Abstract Art Olympics

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by simus, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. simus

    simus New Member

    8
    0
    0
  2. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    Monkeys are very smart.

    ;)
     
  3. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    This shows just how much of a joke the previous judging system was. :scream:
     
  4. simus

    simus New Member

    8
    0
    0
    It shows the contrary.
     
  5. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    I think it shows how muddled the thinking of the author is. He's comparing apples and oranges and making weird leaps of logic to come to conclusions that are somewhat arbitrary.
     
  6. simus

    simus New Member

    8
    0
    0
    Perhaps you can explain using your clear like alpine spring thinking why you in some cases use this comparison to promote books

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Freakonomics.jpg

    and in other cases use it to dismiss the argument?
     
  7. overedge

    overedge Well-Known Member

    18,190
    2,769
    113
    Agreed. Judging that one painting is "better" than another and judging a skating performance using a set of definable standards are two completely different processes.
     
  8. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    WTF are you talking about?

    I was thinking more of when he did things like say that this process was X% better than that one when the two number sets couldn't be directly compared like that.
     
  9. simus

    simus New Member

    8
    0
    0
    I am talking that the Freakonomics book is praised everywhere for comparing apples and oranges. How can you use the same expression in one case as praise and in another case as slander?
     
  10. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    Oh, you are using the "you said X about Y so you can't say A about B" logical fallacy.

    And it's not "slander" to criticize an article. For one thing slander is oral, not written.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
     
  11. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    12,916
    3,831
    113
    I got an F in Statistics the first time. Second time I got a D. Or maybe it was a D+? Thankfully I transferred schools and I didn't have to take it a third time, they let me take "Mathematics For Liberal Arts Majors Who Don't Get Numbers" instead. I got an A in that one.

    That said, I don't know WTF this guy is talking about, but I do know I'd be more inclined to enjoy monkey art than anything some abstract expressionist hack would churn out.
     
  12. simus

    simus New Member

    8
    0
    0
    No. I am saying that after you said "X is a genius because he did Y" you can't say "Z is a fool because he did Y."
     
  13. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    Except (a) nobody said that and (b) you actually can say that sometimes, because circumstances and context can change whether or not something is acceptable/wise/etc.
     
  14. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    12,916
    3,831
    113
    This thread is already better than the two statistics classes I had, I suspect the presence of monkeys in the discussion mitigates the logical torture.
     
  15. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    9,261
    1,947
    113
    Who bumps a thread a year later to continue an argument that was stupid to begin with? :huh:
     
  16. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,562
    113
    I'm guessing the author of the article. :shuffle: