What jeccross has said here is exactly what I meant by "sophistry", Aaron.

Martingale doesn't work because bet sizing has 0 effect on the house edge,
simple as that.

Assuming we're not dealing with the unrealistic case of an infinite bankroll, and infinite table limit.

Except that sophistry by definition entails the use of fallacious argumentation, of which Aaron is not employing.

So, clearly what you meant, is not what the word means.

soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
a fallacious argument.

Whoa there, tiger. I assume you're talking about me. What is this scientific literature I've challenged? The survey?

Damn, really? Wish someone had told me that before. Do you coach AP strategies? What's your hourly rate?

Don't worry, I'm sure a man of boundless intellectual resource and bounded intellectual integrity will explain to us how we're wrong on yet again another point.

Yup.

I was arguing against your claim from OP that religious people were incapable of rational thought. I put forward this statement:

The context at this point was that it is historically accurate to say that most of the scholarship in the past came from religious people creating and preserving it.

Anyway, I cited a specific article regarding the contemporary view:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amarna..._b_749630.html

And I specifically cited the following statement within it:

And here was your response:

You then proceeded to make a couple nebulous criticisms ("questions") and cast doubt that "meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the study."

The first one challenged the sampling method. The second one is that you questioned whether the surveys were anonymous, as non-anonymous surveys have social pressure associated with them.

In both cases, you could have found your answer by trying to look up the paper yourself and reading their report of the sampling methods (which is a standard thing to do in the academic literature). The idea that the academics would hand-pick who to deliver the surveys to, or somehow fail at some of the most basic types of things associated with academic surveys really just shows a lack of depth of your understanding of how any of this academic stuff works.

It's literally a survey. They're looking at the numbers are reporting them. It's not some sort of deep causal analysis. It's just reporting what the survey found.

You literally dismissed academic work out of hand because it was so different from what you believe.

Seriously? Do you suck that much at this?

If someone calls an argument "specious" then they're saying that the argument fails and there's something wrong (fallacious) with it.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/specious

Done.

It's pretty clear that you don't even understand the definitions of words you are trying to use. How embarrassing.


spe·cious
ˈspēSHəs/Submit
adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
"a specious argument"

Granted. My analysis of the survey was probably wrong.

You could have made these points 400 posts ago, yet you choose to make them now. A more cynical person than I might suspect you were keeping some ammunition in your pocket for later.

You've fired it now, well done. Still doesn't help your case, much. Not exactly a "boom - headshot".

A for effort. C- for attainment.

I don't understand what point you are trying to prove with this post?

Are wrong and fallacious the same thing in your eyes? From what I've seen of your posts, I'd venture not. In fact, you spend your time arguing that positions that are "wrong" in most enlightened people's eyes are not necessarily "fallacious".

Do you really want to make this an argument about semantics? You fail to grasp the nuances of the word "specious". If you would like to continue on this derail, I can explain them to you. Maybe, as someone who is so keen on calling out others on their intellectual laziness, you might look it up yourself.

Sigh.

Jeccross said this about Aaron: "Over-complicating language is a sign of insecurity rather than intelligence."

You replied:

I replied:

And then you came up with this brilliant rejoinder (clearly not even
realizing what 'specious' even means), even editing your post for (supposed) clarity:

You don't even realize that specious MEANS FALLACIOUS, even when
pointed out to you in basic 2nd grade level English.

Wow. Nice try at trying to weasel out of this one. This is embarrassing.

I realise that you think you are smart and that your arguments hold water. I concede that you genuinely believe that, and you are not trolling.

Have you ever tested any of them against anyone in real life who disagrees with you? Or do you just do it so you can go back to the good ole' boys and tell them how ******ed "dem libruls on internets" are, while you shoot your guns in the air in honour of Trump getting elected?

That was post #90. In Post #91, I said the following:

So it seems to me that I addressed it at the first possible moment. The conversation could have continued, but in Post #94 you asked to allow space for other opinions other than mine, so I let it go.

And this isn't actually the first time I've referenced that.

Post #258:

Post #390:

There might be one more in there, but I'm not going to bother looking for it. But here you are, in Post #562 complaining about me not mentioning this. You are just having the worst time with facts and history.

The words are similar enough that I don't perceive too much difference between them. Fallacious makes me think of "fallacy" which is like an error. Being wrong means something like committing an error.

Can you show me where I've done specifically this?

Why not? Semantics is all about meaning. I think we should care about the meaning of the words that we use.

Please explain. What nuance of "specious argument" am I missing that is still included in your attempt to use the idea that "specious argument" is not "fallacious argument"?

It's pretty clear that you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you're
just here to troll.

Here are crossword solutions where the clue includes the term "specious"

http://www.wordplays.com/crossword-s...ious-reasoning

Notice that there are words like fallacious, wrong, untrue, and incorrect among the possibilities.

When you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer.

Jesus Christ (no pun intended), you are now trying to debate the nuances of the word "specious"? Are you that desperate?

Your inability to respond to jecross' post ("Why don't you give some evidence 'for'), and your subsequent flailing around like a fish out of water tells me all that I need to know.

You are forever welcome at my tables.

Do you believe that divine intervention is possible to make given odds less or more than they are on a purely mathematical basis? Do you think that there is any possibility, even, let's say, an extra 1% chance, that if I pray for my FD to complete, it will actually complete? And if so, when you play poker, do you apply this?

Actually, I will quantify this. You take one side of a flip, let's say, heads. We escrow 10k each. I take the boring "50/50" point of view. I'll just take tails every time.

How much of a premium would you pay me if I said you could pray for heads every time? I think 2k is a reasonable number, but it's negotiable. I promise not to pray. Even if I did, I don't think he'd listen.

So, my 8k to your 10k, and you get to pray as much as you like? Happy to do 100k literal coin flips.

I'm attacking the arguer by pointing out that crossword puzzles use the word in a manner consistent with my usage? Do you have a vendetta against crossword puzzles, too?

You offered.

Or perhaps I just called your bluff.

Or perhaps I did address those things and you missed it as you've missed several other things in this thread.

I call.

You don't like the bet? I don't blame you.

Surely there is some % that the pixie shifts it towards you and against us heathens. Give me a number. 10%? 1%? 0.00001?