GAME DAY - Ottawa Senators @ New Jersey Devils, Saturday, April 7, 2012, 3:00 PM EST

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Watch this:

If the Senators win the Cup, then the F35 plan will be conclusively shown to be flawed.

Two possible truths / realities connected by and expressed in the form of If /Then, but with neither one having anything to do with the other, and leading to a nonsensical argument and conclusion. As I'm sure you can see, you could come up with an endless number of similar examples.

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

There's a name for if/then constructions. Anyone know it? I can't remember.

Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

Riprock wrote:Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

What you mean to say is that the form is valid, but it doesn't follow that the conclusion is sound.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=if%2Fthen+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

When I say your logic doesn't follow, I mean the argument is not sound, not that the form is invalid. If you want to get technical.

If you accept that it is in a teams best interest to strategically lose - that is, it is to their advantage to lose for the purpose of gaining something - then you have to accept that a non-playoff team also stands to benefit from losing to gain an advantage, which in this case is a higher draft pick.

If you look carefully, you'll notice I never said:

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

And of course your point is not true, because no teams has either "lost all year long", nor come close. In fact, the last place team this season, Columbus, won 29 games. 29 games (or ~35%). So, you cannot conclude that teams that have "losing cultures" lose all their games. The truth is, there will be a team that finishes last, obviously. And unless the team makes serious changes, they are unlikely to improve by much if at all.

But my argument is in fact valid (not debatable) and has elements of truth, because IF you accept that it is okay, for example, for a playoff team to lose X games in order to gain a positional advantage, then it is equally acceptable for a non-playoff team to lose X games to gain a positional advantage.

I know you can use any MP example to show validity, but come on man, I'm not using an example like you did, I'm showing that you cannot say one is acceptable but the other is not. I'm not equating losing 3 games to losing 20. The number would have to be relatively close.

Remember, I didn't say with certainty one way or another that the Sens did or did not lose on purpose, or that Columbus did either.

I personally don't believe anyone wants to lose - that was something suggested by Evan that teams with nothing to gain or lose, i.e. meaningless games, have no motivation to try. So if a clinched playoff team has no reason to try, a team with no chance at playoffs doesn't either.

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

What you mean to say is that the form is valid, but it doesn't follow that the conclusion is sound.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=if%2Fthen+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

When I say your logic doesn't follow, I mean the argument is not sound, not that the form is invalid. If you want to get technical.

LOL, you didn't say sound, you said valid. And you can't prove soundness with my argument, because you can't prove one way or another if it is true. The whole point is "if it were true, then the conclusion must be true". And if the premises and conclusion are true, we know it is sound.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

What you mean to say is that the form is valid, but it doesn't follow that the conclusion is sound.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=if%2Fthen+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

When I say your logic doesn't follow, I mean the argument is not sound, not that the form is invalid. If you want to get technical.

LOL, you didn't say sound, you said valid. And you can't prove soundness with my argument, because you can't prove one way or another if it is true. The whole point is "if it were true, then the conclusion must be true". And if the premises and conclusion are true, we know it is sound.

Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure I didn't and I invite you to locate where I said that.

Anyway, if you whole point is that your argument can't be proven but makes sense, then you can have it, to be honest, because debating it seems to be an exercise in futility.

Nah, my whole point is that you can't say it is wrong for a team to purposely lose to gain a better pick but say it is ok for a team to lose to avoid a certain opponent.

If it is wrong to lose on purpose, it is wrong regardless of the outcome.

P.S. I'm not saying you said any of that.

As I said, I don't believe any players purposely want to lose. As per the obvious - there must always be a winner and a loser. Some teams are better than some, others are worse. The worse ones have a hard time getting better because they find themselves sucked into a vicious circle - rely on draft picks, rush them into bad situations, and have a hard time attracting players to sign with them.

Riprock wrote:

If you accept that it is in a teams best interest to strategically lose - that is, it is to their advantage to lose for the purpose of gaining something - then you have to accept that a non-playoff team also stands to benefit from losing to gain an advantage, which in this case is a higher draft pick.

If you look carefully, you'll notice I never said:

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

And of course your point is not true, because no teams has either "lost all year long", nor come close. In fact, the last place team this season, Columbus, won 29 games. 29 games (or ~35%). So, you cannot conclude that teams that have "losing cultures" lose all their games. The truth is, there will be a team that finishes last, obviously. And unless the team makes serious changes, they are unlikely to improve by much if at all.

But my argument is in fact valid (not debatable) and has elements of truth, because IF you accept that it is okay, for example, for a playoff team to lose X games in order to gain a positional advantage, then it is equally acceptable for a non-playoff team to lose X games to gain a positional advantage.

I know you can use any MP example to show validity, but come on man, I'm not using an example like you did, I'm showing that you cannot say one is acceptable but the other is not. I'm not equating losing 3 games to losing 20. The number would have to be relatively close.

Remember, I didn't say with certainty one way or another that the Sens did or did not lose on purpose, or that Columbus did either.

I personally don't believe anyone wants to lose - that was something suggested by Evan that teams with nothing to gain or lose, i.e. meaningless games, have no motivation to try. So if a clinched playoff team has no reason to try, a team with no chance at playoffs doesn't either.

The whole issue that sparked this debate was the Sens ONE LOSS to NJ. If your only point is that it's equally OK for a winning team to come not prepared to win ONE meaningless game as it is for a losing team to not come prepared to win ONE meaningless game, then sure. I'm not sure where that gets us, tho', because I can't recall anytime where the Sens needed to lose just one game to substantially improve their draft position.

But do NOT equate the Sens losing ONE meaningless game with, say, the Sens losing A LARGE NUMBER of games last year (when you clearly wanted them to lose many more). Those are apples and oranges, and what is understandable and predictable in one situation, is NOT understandable or acceptable in the other situation. One is a failure to mentally get up for a game after a period of high exertion and success; the other is accepting losing and a losing culture, and a failure to commit to a turn around. The first happens to winners *all the time*; the second happens to teams whose players have given up on their teams.

Riprock wrote:Nah, my whole point is that you can't say it is wrong for a team to purposely lose to gain a better pick but say it is ok for a team to lose to avoid a certain opponent.

If it is wrong to lose on purpose, it is wrong regardless of the outcome.

P.S. I'm not saying you said any of that.

As I said, I don't believe any players purposely want to lose. As per the obvious - there must always be a winner and a loser. Some teams are better than some, others are worse. The worse ones have a hard time getting better because they find themselves sucked into a vicious circle - rely on draft picks, rush them into bad situations, and have a hard time attracting players to sign with them.

And that, I can largely agree with. And I would say that is wrong to lose on purpose, for sure -- but again, I don't think that's what happened here with the Sens, at all.

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Watch this:

If the Senators win the Cup, then the F35 plan will be conclusively shown to be flawed.

Two possible truths / realities connected by and expressed in the form of If /Then, but with neither one having anything to do with the other, and leading to a nonsensical argument and conclusion. As I'm sure you can see, you could come up with an endless number of similar examples.

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

That is a syllogism.

- we are all unique
- I am a man
- therefore you are not a man

All A's are B's.
Some A's are C's.
---------------------
Some B's are C's.

That's a valid argument.

Riprock wrote:All A's are B's.
Some A's are C's.
---------------------
Some B's are C's.

That's a valid argument.

Yup.

I'm a business student sooooo...

....Is this the right room for an argument?

Here's one that will blow your mind...

All beers are cold.
Some beers are good.
Most beers are bad.

Does a good beer that goes warm become bad?

Blowin' your mind...

No. It becomes warm. Then it's put in the fridge.