04-15-2009, 06:32 AM
I was trying to point out that it was Cole's argument that was flawed, not make the same flawed point by way of counter-argument!
"statistically significant" is not a valid argument, because surviving ancient artifacts are always few, compared to the number of originals. Nor can one point to survival of a 'few' artifacts as "statistically insignificant" compared to 'many' in another instance. It is the relative number of survivors to originals that may make artifacts "statistically significant", and even then, only for some few purposes.....
"statistically significant" is not a valid argument, because surviving ancient artifacts are always few, compared to the number of originals. Nor can one point to survival of a 'few' artifacts as "statistically insignificant" compared to 'many' in another instance. It is the relative number of survivors to originals that may make artifacts "statistically significant", and even then, only for some few purposes.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
