Monkeys get a silver in Abstract Art Olympics

[simus]

The difference between abstract artists and monkey artists is less than between gold and silver figure-skating medalists

http://www.significancemagazine.org/...-Olympics.html

[MacMadame]

Monkeys are very smart.

[Ziggy]

This shows just how much of a joke the previous judging system was.

[simus]

This shows just how much of a joke the previous judging system was.

It shows the contrary.

[MacMadame]

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.

[simus]

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.

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/wikipedi...eakonomics.jpg

and in other cases use it to dismiss the argument?

[overedge]

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.

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.

[MacMadame]

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/wikipedi...eakonomics.jpg

and in other cases use it to dismiss the argument?

WTF are you talking about?

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.

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.

[simus]

WTF are you talking about?

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?

[MacMadame]

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?

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

[Southpaw]

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.

[simus]

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

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."

[MacMadame]

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.

[Southpaw]

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.

[michiruwater]

Who bumps a thread a year later to continue an argument that was stupid to begin with?

[MacMadame]

Who bumps a thread a year later to continue an argument that was stupid to begin with?

I'm guessing the author of the article.