| >For any question, there are nearly an infinite number of statements that either do not apply or make some error in fact, judgement, or conclusion. Q: should one vote for Trump A: No, because it will distract from his duties to distribute toys to good children once a year. Is that a wrong answer or a right answer, assuming that one agrees on should not vote for Trump. At any rate let us put it in the set of wrong answers, is it a wrong answer that will ever actually be given in seriousness to the question? Sure it is a potentially wrong answer to the question, as is "2 + 2 equals 5" but while potentially wrong is it ever going to be wrong in actuality. The set of potential wrong answers to any question is infinite, the set of actual answers probably are not infinite, and as I noted from my experience seems to actually converge on a normative set of wrong / stupid answers. > each one has narrower possibilities than the next: Pragmatic (immediate), strategic, and innovative (novel solution). given your use of potential answers that are wrong to show how that set is much bigger I would think you would see that the innovative is probably bigger than immediate (depending on constraints of problem) and also unknowable. >"What should we do to pass the time?"
shows a question >"We could go hang ourselves..."
shows not a serious attempt to answer the question, in my experience, but a refusal to consider the question important enough to answer. |
But the original statement was simple: "There are more ways to be wrong than there are to be right." You took issue with this, but if you're willing to grant that the set of wrongness is infinite, we're one step away from a debating proof (pumps fist: internet points!). If you'll concede that the ways to be right in answer to the question are finite, which I'd assert even in the innovative space, they are, then the statement holds.
At any rate, thank you for the discussion.