4 ms·
No one is making the argument with ∀. It would be preposterous to do that in the real world because "for all" quantifiers only work in mathematics. Almost alway
by noobermin 9y ago
No one is making the argument with ∀. It would be preposterous to do that in the real world because "for all" quantifiers only work in mathematics. Almost always when someone says "all" in common conversation they either mean some form of "almost always" or "a good majority"; Otherwise, they are thinking too simplistically if they really think it applies to a true "all." Taking exception to "no true Scotsman" arguments of course.
- SilasX 9y agoI know they didn't say "for all", but it's functionally equivalent when the claim is that the very nature of the market forces providers into these patterns. That explanation would indeed be refuted by a persistent counter example.
- noobermin 9y agoYes, I grant that a persistent counter example would point to other factors that could exist. Counter examples usually point to "the world is more complicated" rather than disprove X if X applies to a majority the set it talks about, as I said. I'd imagine if X explains a good fraction of what you're talking about, you'd want to pursue X as an explanation over chasing explanations that effect the exceptions.
- SilasX 9y agoAgain, depends on the claim. If the claim is that "factor X dominates to the point that it can't be ignored", then a persistent counterexample refutes it. If the claim is that "factor X makes it so that the most reliable business model is to do Y", then it wouldn't. My reading of the article is much closer to the former.