[d10]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a point to this thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that David seems to be debating logically against people whose beliefs don't rely on logic. Theoretically he may have the most correct arguments, but they will only be compelling to those who already agreed with those arguments in the first place. Those who don't believe in David's reasoning won't find any reason to accept anything David says as logically sound, therefore his arguments, as correct as they may be, are inherently pointless given the audience.

It's like the concept of betting on the end in poker. Putting as much money in the pot as you can when you are 100% to win it may be theoretically correct, but often checking it through is more correct in the practical sense, when betting will accomplish nothing against those who are in fact the losers of the hand.

Or it's like when a helicopter pilot tries to explain to you why the flight controls are set up as they are by using the term "gyroscopic procession" but then goes on to explain a concept that is not even close to gyroscopic procession. Sure, I could try to explain how gyroscopic procession actually works and its application on a helicopter, but it's obvious this guy is not thinking in terms of physics, but only what he was taught in flight school, so instead I just smile and nod.