Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
More like ie, making an inference based on a vague and broad statement. I like how you drew the conclusion of "equivalent contribution" from the statement "legitimate hockey deal". Do they not teach the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning in schools anymore?!?
|
Check what has been referred to as ‘legitimate hockey deals’ in recent times by the media: Subban for Weber. Hall for Larsson. Jones for Johansen. One roster player for another of more or less equivalent value. Go ahead, ask somebody in the business what is meant by a legitimate hockey trade; I'll wait here. Hint: Trading a star player for picks, prospects, and/or spare parts, just to get out from under his cap hit, is not a legitimate hockey trade; and that is the only kind of trade being rumoured between the Capitals and Flames.
Deductive reasoning is a chain of formal logic leading infallibly from ground to consequent. Inductive reasoning is the process of validly drawing general inferences from multiple observations. The distinction between them has absolutely nothing to do with what anybody is saying in this thread, including yourself. You threw that in to try to make yourself look smart, and you failed spectacularly.
Quote:
|
Did he answer a question that asked point blank "will you, or are, trading Alex Ovechkin?". No, he brought up the idea of Ovy potentially being traded.
|
Only to say that he wasn't going to do it. The context makes it clear that he was addressing complaints from fans.
Quote:
|
So yeah, smug for no reason.
|
And you conclude by repeating your insult to a third party, since I wasn't even part of the conversation at that point. Again you try to look smart and fail.