Quote from GentlemanGustaf »
Quote from pumis»
Again you are making here two assumptions.
I will list them.
1. Being a good player is what gets you played
^ Fixed it for you
Again it's irrelevant how often pros are right when compared to average players (I still haven't seen you making study about this yet but that is another point). WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT debating which IDEA IS TRUE.
It's a joke that you think we even NEED a study about this. Do you think your average person knows as much about blacksmithing as your average blacksmith? Does your average person know as much about wiring as your average electrician?
Heck you have admitted times ago that authority is bad thing to use in debates and still you keep defending it. Why? Were not debating should you justify your personal usage with it. We are debating should you use it in argument where people want to know which one is true.
No I haven't. I've said that authority is not a valid argument. An argument is valid iff "its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises and each step in the argument is logical."
However, this is only important to formal proof. You can say that we're debating whether you should use it in an argument where people want to know which one is true, but we're not. Because that's not how you get better at something. Yes, mathcrafting is one way to do so, but it is by no means fail proof (because of the number of factors in the game which, while in their mathcraftable, remain un-mathcrafted). As such, we have to resort to other things, such as observing professional play, discussing intuition, and otherwise doing ANYTHING to better your play. Therefore, it is entirely relevant how likely authority is to benefit you.
I agree with you that authority is not a VALID argument. I do think authority is still a good heuristic to use, because it will get results.
As I have said again and again and again (and as you have also said), NOBODY is saying that authority is a logically valid argument.
Therefore, that cannot be what this discussion is about, because we BOTH AGREE ABOUT THAT. The point I am taking issue with is your really weird infatuation with the idea that pro players aren't more knowledgeable than average players, that there are no advantages to having your WHOLE DAY dedicated to LoL. (and no, I'm not saying that no average players do that, but almost ALL pro players do that, most average players have jobs and other things to do)
TL;DR: Chance/most likely is irrelevant when we are trying to find truth.
Tell that to quantum mechanics; probabilistic models are used quite extensively there.
It's only a joke if you like pseudoscience.
Also if anyone would come and tell me that he knows about Quantum mechanics I would say that he lies. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW YET ABOUT THEM. That's why we use chances to describe it. Anything that we don't know we explain with chances. Even a rolling a die simply because we can't calculate which number we will get.
Also WORLD OUTSIDE QUANTUM doesn't work by chances. And neither does League of legends balance.
"As I have said again and again and again (and as you have also said), NOBODY is saying that authority is a logically valid argument."
No Shit. I have already said that I don't believe that you think like it. However few people here does actually.
ALL I'm Saying here is that if it isn't valid argument then we shouldn't use it when it comes to debate about balance, builds and champions. Which you have done.