Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

People often show difficulty in comprehending what is out of their realm of experience, and age worsens the problem--believe me, i know. (There ya go, Frank, a cheap shot just waiting for you.)

Let me try this once again...and I'll go slowly so that you have as little trouble following as possible.

Once you have deemed the odds of an event or circumstance to be greater than 50% -- the event or circumstance is considered to be PROBABLE.

The fact that the odds in favor of any particular event or circumstance are only 51% is of no consequences -- if it is deemed to be over 50%, it is PROBABLE.

It is not made even a tiny bit less probable if one can show that some other "probable" event or circumstance has odds of happening a great deal greater than 51% -- say 98 - 99%.

It (the 51% event or circumstance) is "probable" by definition -- and it doesn't matter that other events and circumstances have greater odds of eventuating.

We often refer to that difference as "one is more probable than the other" -- but exactitude requires that we actually say "the odds of A happening are greater than of B happening."

But no matter that, as to the question of whether or not any of them is PROBABLE -- the answer is YES -- for each and every one of them. They are all probable -- and that is that.

Repeat in other words:

We do speak of "this being more probable than that" -- but when we do, we do so at a cost so language....

Once it is probable -- it cannot be "more probable"...EVEN IF EVERY ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSON ON THE PLANET USES THE EXPRESSIONS.

Everyone using that expression is, in effect, being vulgar. He or she is using the language of the street -- and doing so at the expense of accuracy.

I'm sorry you cannot see that.

If it turns out that no one else in this thread sees it -- I say, too bad that, also!

If everyone else in the English speaking world misses my point -- well, too bad for all English speakers.

BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THIS -- AND EVERYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS MISTAKEN -- EVEN IF IT IS EVERYBODY.

I'm going to play golf tomorrow morning -- and I am going to laugh my fool ass off about this....little discussion...we've been having.

I hope the laugh comes at a good time -- when I need a bit of relazation to make my swing more fluid.

But even if it comes just a microsecond before stroking a putt any my come-back is longer than the opening putt -- I will enjoy it.

This is one hell of a fine world -- and the Internet is one hell of a fine place to pass a few minutes of time in lively conversation.

Absolute terms are words that supposedly cannot be compared, as by more and most, or used with an intensive modifier, such as very or so. The terms identified in many handbooks as absolute include absolute itself and others such as chief, complete, perfect, prime, and unique. Language commentators also like to list terms from mathematics as absolutes: circular, equal, parallel, perpendicular, and so on. 1
Of course, many adjectives in English cannot normally be compared or intensified. Adjectives from technical fields or with very narrow meanings often fall in this group. Think of biological, catabolic, macroeconomic, millennial, on-line, retroactive, ultraviolet. You just do not encounter statements like These cells are more somatic or Our database is so on-line. But you do come across remarks such as He wanted to make his record collection more complete and You can improve the sketch by making the lines more perpendicular. 2
People object to these constructions because they seem to violate the categories of logic. Something is either complete or it isn't. Lines are either perpendicular or they aren't. There can be no in-between. The mistake here is to confuse pure logic or a mathematical ideal with the working approximations that distinguish the ordinary use of language. Certainly, we all have occasion to use words according to strict logic. It would be impossible to teach mathematics if we did not. But we also think in terms of a scale or spectrum, rather than in distinct, either/or categories. Thus, we may think of a statement as either true or false according to rigorous tests of logic, but we all know that there are degrees of truthfulness and falsehood. Such examples are not less logical than their stricter counterparts. They simply represent a different way of using language to discuss a subject. 3
Certain absolute terms, such as parallel, perfect, and unique, have become enshrined in the lore of writing handbooks and may provoke a negative response when modified by degree. These words are treated in more detail at their entries under Word Choice.

After all, if we were to use unique only according to the strictest criteria of logic, we might freely apply the term to anything in the world, since nothing is wholly equivalent to anything else. Clearly, then, when we say that a restaurant or painting is unique, we mean that it is in a class by itself. It might be easier to recognize that unique, like many absolute terms, has more than one sense and can be modified with grace in certain uses.

It's not a contest Frank, i was simply referring to your love of the nasty comment about those who display sufficient temerity as to disagree with you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let me try this once again...and I'll go slowly so that you have as little trouble following as possible.

Frank, you like to characterize this as a matter of understanding or "getting it". You know very well that this is a matter of disagreeing with you. And not one of not comprehending what you are trying to say.

You frequently try to characterize it as being a foregone conclusion faced with obtuseness.

Such is your prerogative but it does nothing to further your argument.

In short, the speed with which you compose your post does not make you any more correct than the repetitious proclamations that you are right.

So by all means, type as fast as you'd like, and please spend as much time trying to consruct your argument as you do the insults and ploys.

Quote:

Once you have deemed the odds of an event or circumstance to be greater than 50% -- the event or circumstance is considered to be PROBABLE.

The fact that the odds in favor of any particular event or circumstance are only 51% is of no consequences -- if it is deemed to be over 50%, it is PROBABLE.

Thus far I agree.

Quote:

It is not made even a tiny bit less probable if one can show that some other "probable" event or circumstance has odds of happening a great deal greater than 51% -- say 98 - 99%.

Correct. But then again that has nothing to do with the argument. Demonstrating that an unrelated probability does not influence your example does not make the case that varying degrees of probability can be expressed with modifiers.

If you want to assert that something with the probability of 51% is no less probable than something with a probability of 99% then you will have addessed the validity of forbidding said modification.

Quote:

It (the 51% event or circumstance) is "probable" by definition -- and it doesn't matter that other events and circumstances have greater odds of eventuating.

Yes, and even if compared to another "probable" event it is still probable. Even if the other event has a far greater probability.

But again, that is no argument against the proscription of modifiers. The same can be said of many things.

e.g.

1) Item A is 2 degrees to the left. It is "to the left". Even if Item B is 44 degrees to the left Item A is still "to the left".

But that does not mean that Item B can't be described as further to the left.

2) Person A's ideal weight is 100. Person A weighs 102. Person A is overweight. Person B's ideal weight is 100. Person B weighs 1,000.

While both are "overweight" person B is more so.

Quote:

We often refer to that difference as "one is more probable than the other" -- but exactitude requires that we actually say "the odds of A happening are greater than of B happening."

You state this as if it were a given. And again I ask upon what basis do you make this claim.

See, many things have a clear delienation between one side and the other. This does not mean they can't take a modifier.

The argument against taking a modifier is simple. There has to be a logical inconsistency with an absolute.

What you fail to accomplish in your arguments is to make the case that probability is an absolute.

In a comparison with an absolute term like "perfect" or "unique" one can note the difference.

Perfection is an absolute.

Probable is not. Probable (as defined by a dictionary) can refer to the ratio of likelihood. Said ratios are not absolutes, they can have wide variance.

So while "perfection" does not vary, degrees of probability do. And are not absolute.

Quote:

But no matter that, as to the question of whether or not any of them is PROBABLE -- the answer is YES -- for each and every one of them. They are all probable -- and that is that.

And to use the example of "to the left" again, no matter how far to the left, it is still "to the left".

That does not mean that there can't be a delienation between the variance. It can indeed be "further to the left" just as it can have varying degrees of probability.

Quote:

Repeat in other words:

We do speak of "this being more probable than that" -- but when we do, we do so at a cost so language....

You have repeated this at length. I would prefer a logical attempt to validate the repetition. Mere repetition is unconvincing to me.

Quote:

Once it is probable -- it cannot be "more probable"...EVEN IF EVERY ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSON ON THE PLANET USES THE EXPRESSIONS.

You are still just stating your argument stridently and not defending it's merit.

Quote:

Everyone using that expression is, in effect, being vulgar. He or she is using the language of the street -- and doing so at the expense of accuracy.

Repeating still, and still not making an argument.

Quote:

I'm sorry you cannot see that.

Again, it's not a matter of "seeing" it. You have basically said "probable can't be modified" several ways and repeated it.

I see it. I disagree with it.

And as I stated earlier mere repetition of your claim is no validation.

And as I stated earlier trying the emperor's new clothes argument of "you can't see it!" is also mere rhetoric of no value to the argument.

Quote:

If it turns out that no one else in this thread sees it -- I say, too bad that, also!

Frank, who cares who agrees with you (or to use your words "see it").

Make the case that it's an absolute that can't be modified. Everything else is just repetition of what you posit as an axiom.

If you spent half the time defending axiomatic elements to your position as trying to make it a case of the emperor's new clothes this would be quickened.

Quote:

If everyone else in the English speaking world misses my point -- well, too bad for all English speakers.

I think we've got the disclaimers in place in case people dare to disagree with you.

But as you should know. I do, in fact, disagree with you. So now that the disclaimers have been stated ad nauseum can you formulate your argument that it is an absolute that can't be modified?

Quote:

BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THIS -- AND EVERYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS MISTAKEN -- EVEN IF IT IS EVERYBODY.

Jean-Claude Van-DAMN this is a long disclaimer. I have noted that you, in capital letters no less, declare that it does not matter if anyone agrees with you.

But please note that a while back, when you tried to use as an argument whether Setanta agreed with me I stated that it was irrelevant.

You are now declaring that the very type of argument that you had used is invalid. Yet that had already been established.

And at the risk of the same degree of repetition I will ask you to spend a fraction of the effort at establishing your position. Instead of the usual disclaimers, insults and upper case letters.

Quote:

I'm going to play golf tomorrow morning -- and I am going to laugh my fool ass off about this....little discussion...we've been having.

I'm going to have a tuna melt tommorrow. Maybe I'll have some OJ for breakfast. In fact I find it more probable than waking up to see you substantiate your assertions.

Quote:

I hope the laugh comes at a good time -- when I need a bit of relazation to make my swing more fluid.

I hope I maintain my luck and have an unobstructed bowel movement tomorrow. I also hope this is not your stock and store and that you will at least attempt to support your repeated claims.

Quote:

But even if it comes just a microsecond before stroking a putt any my come-back is longer than the opening putt -- I will enjoy it.

Truth to tell even if it is obstucted I'll force it out anyway.

Quote:

This is one hell of a fine world -- and the Internet is one hell of a fine place to pass a few minutes of time in lively conversation.

I agree, and have made a reasonable effort with the pleasantries and observations. I ask that you make a reasonable effort to formulate your argument and answer a few questions.


1) Please state your source for the rule you propose.
2) Please try to make a case that probable is an absolute that can't vary and thusly can't be modified. You've said you believe as much but have not supported this in any way.

I will help with source material.

Here are some arguments from Bartleby about words that are, indeed, absolutes with longstanding rules against modification.

Even these absolutes have usages that make the case for modification. But you fail to even demonstrate that probable does not vary in degrees. That is a pre-requisite to proscription of the modifier.

So please note that if you were to establish that probable is an absolute term (you will be forced to ignore dictionary definitions of "probable") you will see the valid debate of whether an absolute term can be modified.

Thus far, you have not established that there is no variance between degrees of probability. You need to do this to assert that it can't be modified.

To put it another way, "modify" is to change. You must illustrate that degrees of probability have no variance, no change.

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage wrote:

Absolute terms are words that supposedly cannot be compared, as by more and most, or used with an intensive modifier, such as very or so. The terms identified in many handbooks as absolute include absolute itself and others such as chief, complete, perfect, prime, and unique. Language commentators also like to list terms from mathematics as absolutes: circular, equal, parallel, perpendicular, and so on. 1
Of course, many adjectives in English cannot normally be compared or intensified. Adjectives from technical fields or with very narrow meanings often fall in this group. Think of biological, catabolic, macroeconomic, millennial, on-line, retroactive, ultraviolet. You just do not encounter statements like These cells are more somatic or Our database is so on-line. But you do come across remarks such as He wanted to make his record collection more complete and You can improve the sketch by making the lines more perpendicular. 2
People object to these constructions because they seem to violate the categories of logic. Something is either complete or it isn't. Lines are either perpendicular or they aren't. There can be no in-between. The mistake here is to confuse pure logic or a mathematical ideal with the working approximations that distinguish the ordinary use of language. Certainly, we all have occasion to use words according to strict logic. It would be impossible to teach mathematics if we did not. But we also think in terms of a scale or spectrum, rather than in distinct, either/or categories. Thus, we may think of a statement as either true or false according to rigorous tests of logic, but we all know that there are degrees of truthfulness and falsehood. Such examples are not less logical than their stricter counterparts. They simply represent a different way of using language to discuss a subject. 3
Certain absolute terms, such as parallel, perfect, and unique, have become enshrined in the lore of writing handbooks and may provoke a negative response when modified by degree. These words are treated in more detail at their entries under Word Choice.

Note that word choice is another facet of what I earlier called collocation. I had asked you to cite the rule of collocation that you base your claim on. Please do so (even if you have to toss in the insults on your way to it).

Here is more, on the subject of the absolute term "unique". Osso is spot on to hold "unique" as less modifiable than "probable" as "unique" was an absolute term and has only recently depreciated.

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage wrote:

After all, if we were to use unique only according to the strictest criteria of logic, we might freely apply the term to anything in the world, since nothing is wholly equivalent to anything else. Clearly, then, when we say that a restaurant or painting is unique, we mean that it is in a class by itself. It might be easier to recognize that unique, like many absolute terms, has more than one sense and can be modified with grace in certain uses.

Now back to the request you continue to leave unfulfilled.

Academic authorities have argued over the validity of modifying absolute terms. Said terms can be found in reference material.

Please cite a single authorative reference that holds probable to be an absolute term that can't be modified.

A person takes a little nap (ok, so I was asleep for 13 hours) and returns to find all hell breaking loose over probable. Frankly, I've never thought about the word "probable" as modifiable or not modifiable.

My first action--I looked it up in the dictionary. There are three definitions.

1. supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
2. establishing a probability
3. likely to become true or real

I'm reading. I'm pondering. I'm musing. I'm not sure that I could, would, or should add a modifier to the first two definitions. But the third definition? Yup. I can modify this. The definition says "likely." Something can be more likely to happen than something else. Something can be less likely to happen. Therefore, I gotta say that "probable" can be modified if you're using the third definition.

Example: I'm walking along the promenade down by the East River. I happen to spot a decomposing human body floating by. Once I recover my senses and notify the authorities, I sit on a bench and consider the situation. I come up with three likely reasons for the person to have ended up floating in the river: accident, suicide, and murder. But which is the most probable--the most likely reason? Can't tell without an autopsy.

Yawn!

Jeez, you really have trouble acknowledging that you are wrong.

But that doesn't make you any less wrong.

As well as game theory and statistics, i would add actuarials as an area in which probability is commonly modified as to degree. The argument against the modification of probable grows weaker, apace.