On 2006-02-19 19:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Why not drop it before calling Bish's compliment "ridiculous"?

As Bish has, in fact, seen the work of all concerned, while one may agree or disagree with his conclusions, there isn't anything confusing or invalid about the logic.

On 2006-02-20 15:28, Steven Youell wrote:
Actually, there are at least three fallacies involved in the argument you described above. Shall I list them? Does it matter?

Ah forget it, I'm going back underground...

SEY

Actually, there are at least three fallacies involved in the argument you described above. Shall I list them? Does it matter?



SEY

On 2006-02-20 20:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
... I was only able to score in the 99th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test.

The implication is that Bish knew the above mentioned magicians, and considers them great.

If you agree that they were great, then that is evidence supporting Bish's ability to evaluate magical talent.

Bish then relies on the same tools of evaluation to make a statement about another magician, an evaluation that one is more likely to accord weight to if one agrees with his evaluation of the others.

I consider Vinny’s work with cards equil to and as important to card magic as the card work of Ed Marlo and Dai Vernon!

Here's what you wrote:

Quote:

The implication is that Bish knew the above mentioned magicians, and considers them great.

Because Bish spent time with someone, it does not neccessarily follow that they
*knew* them in the intimate sense of the word. It means that they spent time with
them. Cervon, Jennings, Carney, Ose, The Larsons etc., *knew* Vernon. From how I read Bish's post, he *spent time* with Vernon and Marlo. Making the assumption of equating what Bish wrote with an long and intimate association is a mistake in reasoning. It's jumping to a conclusion. Guess they didn't have that on the LSAT, huh?


Actually, *you* are apparently jumping to the conclusion that when I said "knew," I meant, "'knew' in the intimate sense of the word." For the purpose of judging their magical abilities, I meant only that he "knew" them in the sense that he had seen their work firsthand. Another fallacy that you're committing is the "straw man" fallacy - attributing to me an assertion I never made, then refuting THAT assertion as if it were mine. I never inferred a "long and intimate association" that Bish had with either Marlo or Vernon. You pulled that out of thin air, attributed it to me, and then disagreed with it.

Quote:

If you agree that they were great, then that is evidence supporting Bish's ability to evaluate magical talent.

No, it isn't. Your statement is a false if/then statement. If there was no other evidence that Vernon and Marlo were great then your supposition might hold water. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Marlo and Vernon were great. This means that someone with absolutely no discernment whatsoever and no knowledge of magic could make the statement that Vernon and Marlo were great and according to your faulty reasoning that would automatically qualify them to accurately judge the value of another magicians contributions.

How hard do you think it would be for someone who has no knowledge of magic whatsoever to get on this board, cruise through the messages for a week and then make a statement like "Vernon and Marlo were two of the greatest cardmen in the world"? Would agreeing with that statement neccessitate ageeing with other evaluations of performers? I don't believe so.

It IS, actually, evidence in support of his ability to judge talent. Your argument goes to the WEIGHT of that evidence (it is, clearly, minimal). However, it is not NON-evidence. It is testimonial evidence that can be used by the reader to either conclude that it is more likely or less likely that Bish is a valid judge of magical talent. That he MAY be parrotting another's ideas does not mean that the statement provides NO evidence. Furthermore, the fact that he "knew" Marlo and Vernon, in the sense referred to above, is also (minimal) evidence that he had a basis for forming independent beliefs on the subject.

Quote:

Bish then relies on the same tools of evaluation to make a statement about another magician, an evaluation that one is more likely to accord weight to if one agrees with his evaluation of the others.

There is no evidence to support this. First, Bish made a blanket statement without listing any criteria whatsoever. Here is what he wrote:

Quote:

I consider Vinny’s work with cards equil to and as important to card magic as the card work of Ed Marlo and Dai Vernon!

There was no criteria listed. It was a sweeping, unqualified statement.

The fact that he did not enumerate his criteria does not mean that his statement does not provide evidence. Futhermore, it IS qualified by his firsthand knowledge of the abilities of each of the three.



However to defend such a sweeping, unqualified unsupported statement as Glenn Bishop made is just plain intellectually dishonest.

I never indicated that I agreed or disagreed with his statement; I responded to a specific post that suggested that Bish's logic was FLAWED. It was NOT flawed; your own objections indicate a valid objection to Bish's position - it was supported by very minimal evidence. That does not mean that it was confusing or flawed, however, as was suggested (not by you) in the posting I responded to.

On 2006-02-21 01:32, rannie wrote:




I use the Squeeze Palm and I have worked on it long enough that it is second nature to me. I love the look and the naturalness. The basic mechanics of the move combined with my natural hand movement that I am acustomed to makes it undetectable.

Lets just support and help each other here fellas. Allow each other to institutionalize or even acknowledge any mentor or magician any way we wish to. My good friend Glenn did'nt say it was carved and etched in stone. Bish never required anybody to agree. That was his view. This is honest and true to him. It is true for me as well.

Peace!

Rannie Raymundo
aka The Boss
aka The Manila Enforcer