Jason (jcreed) wrote,

Had a good time at D's but got somewhat flustered arguing with tom near the end of the evening. My confidence has gotten shaken up a bit with regard to how I judge arguments to be reasonable or not. I thought my little comment here was essentially without any merit, not just that it's merely a weak statistical boost to how much we should think Kerry's anti-terrorism policies are better than Bush's, but that it's a broken reasoning tactic from the get-go. I felt that it was merely a viscerally plausible thing to say, a sleight of hand that bypasses all of the statistical roadblocks one puts in one's own way to forestall premature conclusions. But tom was arguing that it had some true force to nudge our rightful opinions of Bush (at least with respect to anti-terrorism policy) down a bit, and I was unable to satisfyingly refute the refutal. Rebuttal. Whatever. I'm really fucking tired and I have an advisor meeting tomorrow. Maybe I should go to sleep instead of blogging the night away.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded