If values are measurements, how is accuracy not the purpose?
Sleight of word is occuring how? Substantiate clearly with falsifiable details or your claim is bogus.
It's already substantiated and you seem to be the only one who can't see it. Sad - you are already too far gone.
Already substantiated how? Substantiate this?
You like to make a lot of critical claims with nothing to ever back them up. If you can see the error, why is it that you are unable to point it out? How do you not know that you are just self-assured if you don't put your assumptions to test?
As it stands, your substantiation is bogus until it is substantiated because anyone can say something like that to anything.
Valuation = measurement. Adding more words just makes you sound like Deepak Chopra.
I don't suppose there's a chance you two could just kiss and make up --?
Seriously - "If values are measurements, how is accuracy not the purpose?" <--- If I were to post that to almost any forum and ask for people to guess who said that, Deepak Chopra would very likely be the most common guess. Would you care to give it a try with me?
That isn't what sleight of word means.
And yes when people can't see the obvious you have to spell it out for them.
Whether Deepak Chopra does it is irrelevant. You always have to do that when people fail to see the obvious
Which is why I was pointing out the tautology in your use of valuation and measurement. As I said, adding more words just makes you sound more like Deepak Chopra. I guess you don't want to take me up on that survey to find out just how many other people agree. Oh well, carry on.
There is a major difference between equating two ideas and making a tautology. How can you not see that?
Equating is not the same thing as making a tautology. I am willing for you to prove that it is. However if it is, then it isn't a bad thing to do.
That's enough - I said carry on!
Archaeopteryx, I actually like to pick her brain, because it is rigid-minded. She provides a decent alternate perspective sometimes. It allows me to test for error, (See below what I said to unseen about increasing the sample size.)
Valuation without a metric is nonsense. It also needs a scale. When it comes to morality or ethics, the scale is the range between right and wrong. How can praise and blame/scorn not be at the ends of the scale? What takes their place? In your system, what is at each end of the range of not good/bad, right/wrong?