2nd best ODI side?

[Flem274*]

i mean

This position of mine probably extends beyond me having unorthodox views on things to me having unorthodox views about my unorthodox views

jesus pews

 

[Prince EWS]

what the **** are you on about?

I think a big, boring, confusing philosophical impasse between KV and I was always pretty inevitable tbh. This thread has been crap for a while though so here's as good a place to have it as any other.

 

[Prince EWS]

i mean

jesus pews

Haha, straight out of the "things I'd only ever say to kiwivictor" basket, that one.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Ultimately I suppose I don't care all that much about whether you would have posted it, but if your findings wouldn't have actually influenced (not necessarily changed completely, but influenced) your opinion as to who the best batsman in the world across all formats was, then your theory is contrived and arguing it is intellectually dishonest.

Sure, that's reasonable. I'd hold anyone to that standard.

You seemed to have decided already that, had the all format rankings put Steve Smith at the top, I would still believe that KW was the best batsman because of some failure of objectivity on my part.

There is absolutely no way you can know if that's true or not.

I'm confident that if I looked, I could find and quote 20 posts of mine from recent months in which I said I thought ABdV was better than KW. I reckon I could find 10 in which I rated Joe Root higher than KW (although there would be fewer of those recently). Given that you've likely read some of these posts, you must know yourself that I am far from convinced that KW is the best batsman in the world.

Have you considered the possibility that you may have come to a conclusion without sufficient evidence (such as that I am biased about KW) and then looked for evidence to support that conclusion? i.e. exactly what you're accusing me of?

Aristotle once wrote "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." So just because I write a thread that has a methodology that puts KW at No. 1 doesn't mean I'm claiming he's necessarily No. 1 or that my methodology is the final word or some gold standard of objectivity. It's just a discussion point. Discuss it or not if you feel like it or not. But don't play the man instead of the ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sure, that's reasonable. I'd hold anyone to that standard.

You seemed to have decided already that, had the all format rankings put Steve Smith at the top, I would still believe that KW was the best batsman because of some failure of objectivity on my part.

There is absolutely no way you can know if that's true or not.

I'm confident that if I looked, I could find and quote 20 posts of mine from recent months in which I said I thought ABdV was better than KW. I reckon I could find 10 in which I rated Joe Root higher than KW (although there would be fewer of those recently). Given that you've likely read some of these posts, you must know yourself that I am far from convinced that KW is the best batsman in the world.

Have you considered the possibility that you may have come to a conclusion without sufficient evidence (such as that I am biased about KW) and then looked for evidence to support that conclusion? i.e. exactly what you're accusing me of?

Aristotle once wrote "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." So just because I write a thread that has a methodology that puts KW at No. 1 doesn't mean I'm claiming he's necessarily No. 1 or that my methodology is the final word or some gold standard of objectivity. It's just a discussion point. Discuss it or not if you feel like it or not. But don't play the man instead of the ball.

Essentially I just began to think it was too much of a coincidence that every time you posted up a new theory or methodology or philosophical way of approaching the game, it seemed to point to a similar conclusion (NZ good/Australia bad/Williamson good). There comes a breaking point where it's too much of a coincidence, and the likelihood of these theories being deliberately concocted to conform to a pre-determined agenda increases, and not legitimately entertained in the pursuit of truth.

You're right that I can never be sure either way, but if I start thinking it's more likely than not that's when my interest in engaging you drops. It genuinely has started to drop for those reasons, which is why I said in my first post on the topic that I hope you post a theory that doesn't lead to those sort of conclusions soon so the coincidences stop mounting in my head.

 

[cnerd123]

KV getting #rekt here by PEWS

 

[kiwiviktor81]

You're right that I can never be sure either way, but if I start thinking it's more likely than not that's when my interest in engaging you drops. It genuinely has started to drop for those reasons, which is why I said in my first post on the topic that I hope you post a theory that doesn't lead to those sort of conclusions soon so the coincidences stop mounting in my head.

I don't think Australia are bad. They're clearly the benchmark of world cricket for any point in the past 20 years. They are overrated, though, for the same reason that All Black players are overrated - because the team they play for are the benchmark of their sport.

This quoted point is reasonable. I accept the challenge of thinking up a cricket theory that doesn't shine a good light on NZ or any of its players.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think Australia are bad. They're clearly the benchmark of world cricket for any point in the past 20 years. They are overrated, though, for the same reason that All Black players are overrated - because the team they play for are the benchmark of their sport.

This quoted point is reasonable. I accept the challenge of thinking up a cricket theory that doesn't shine a good light on NZ or any of its players.

If you want to do that you should try "Test matches played since the mid 1930s".

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If you want to do that you should try "Test matches played since the mid 1930s".

I live in the now. The past is for depressives, and the future is for neurotics (Lao Tzu). Wait for us to start losing and I'll think up a theory that explains it.

 

[vcs]

Oh, I can't be bothered engaging his cricket theories. I can be bothered engaging the debate about why I can't be bothered engaging his cricket theories though. I don't think he's being intellectually dishonest in the discussion about that.

i mean

jesus pews

Debate-ception.

 

[Zinzan]

KV, you're still contradicting yourself if you say you 'thought' and 'still think' ABD is the world's best batsman yet create a thread trying to demonstrate KW is the best across all formats based on combined rankings.

This seems to be the bit you don't recognise as a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. If you still think ABD is the best, I doubt you would have started that thread, but even if you did, you would have pointed out the flaws of the current ranking system that seems to indicate KW is the best overall...but you didn't do that. You were happy to 'state" you believe ABD is no.1 but at the same time demonstrate that with your combined ranking points with weightings that it is in fact KW.

That's the bit that's both and 'intellectually dishonest' & well just 'convenient' given you don't really attack your own methodology, yet then sheepishly maintain ABD is the best, even though you seem to want others to conclude that KW is :P

That's the way it comes across tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

Jibber Jabber about Jibber Jabber

 

[weldone]

Ultimately I suppose I don't care all that much about whether you would have posted it, but if your findings wouldn't have actually influenced (not necessarily changed completely, but influenced) your opinion as to who the best batsman in the world across all formats was, then your theory is contrived and arguing it is intellectually dishonest. Should this be the case and you justify it anyway by calling it "top down" or "right brained", then I have absolutely no interest in engaging with your theories ever again, honestly. Suggesting methodologies and theories to be considered only when they support a pre-determined conclusion is straight up intellectually dishonest. Your post suggests that you have no interest the pursuit of truth or the validity of the theories and methodologies you suggest, and instead have an interest only in finding supporting evidence for what you already believe. I haven't got much going on in my life but I think even I have better things to do than seriously engage people who are presenting their ideas in such a manner.

This position of mine probably extends beyond me having unorthodox views on things to me having unorthodox views about my unorthodox views, but my position on this is essentially Jilletian. Reading and listening to lots of Penn Jillette completely changed the way I look at discussions and arguments. He puts forwards the case that not only should everyone always be arguing in the pursuit of truth, but an argument is intellectually dishonest and manipulative if you don't leave open the minute possibility that you may be wrong. Crucially, that can't be satisfied if the point you're debating couldn't actually change your mind about the larger argument. To give an example, it'd be intellectually dishonest for me to go around making the argument that legalising drugs would decrease usage rates, because my position is based entirely on individual autonomy and therefore, if I was proven wrong about usage rates, it wouldn't actually influence my opinion on the issue at all. People shouldn't have to waste their time arguing with me on an sub-issue that won't influence the opinion of either of us. Of course it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest to contradict someone who made the opposite claim as long as I actually believed what I was saying, but making it a key part of my argument would be intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

If you're arguing your position then you should argue your reasoning and argue against your arguing partner's reasoning; not concoct contrived criteria which, even if debunked, wouldn't influence your stance in any way.

Oh PEWS stop it ffs!
My head hurts now.
I'm sure you could express this in 1 or 2 simple sentences if you wanted.

Are you trying to be Salman Rushdie or something?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'd like to see someone explain to Alexander Fleming that the process of intuitive reasoning he used to discover penicillin constituted intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Spark]

I'd like to see someone explain to Alexander Fleming that the process of intuitive reasoning he used to discover penicillin constituted intellectual dishonesty.

Haha, this is one of the worst strawmen seen on this forum in ages.