0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Zero Talent on August 25, 2017, 13:48Quote from: niktol on August 25, 2017, 12:47Quote from: Zero Talent on August 25, 2017, 11:28Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.Same for me: majority means >50%.If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.To be honest, I really don't care about voting in USA (or anywhere else for that matter, I can't be bothered to vote). But I do care about math, even if it's very simple. I guess I have to be very detailed to explain my point.Let's say you have 100 voters in a given country C. 51 of them voted for "leader A" today. 80% of them vote for leader A no matter what. That constitutes 0.8x51~ 41 people who trust leader A unquestionably. We'll call the remaining 10 people swing voters who today voted for leader A. 49 of the total pool of voters voted for "leader B" today. 80% of those who trust leader B unquestionably is 0.8x49~39 people. The remaining 10 people we'll call swing voters who today voted for leader B.As a result of this election "leader A" won.Now let's say by tomorrow leader A screwed up somehow, fell out of favor. None of the swing voters in group B were affected, because they did not vote for A. Let's say two swing voters out of group A decided that they now will vote for leader B. The group A is now reduced by 2 people (49 votes remaining), while the group B becomes larger by 2 people (51 votes). If the election is to be held tomorrow, the leader B will win.To summarize. 80% of all voters vote never change their opinions (41 vote for A, 39 for B). Nonetheless, a small shift in swing votes changed the election outcome. Where do you see a contradiction?
Quote from: niktol on August 25, 2017, 12:47Quote from: Zero Talent on August 25, 2017, 11:28Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.Same for me: majority means >50%.If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.
Quote from: Zero Talent on August 25, 2017, 11:28Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.
I guess we just differ in a definition of a leader which what caused misunderstanding.