premio53 wrote:
I'm not talking about black swans. I'm talking about women complaining about something men excel in and it upsets you. Women are better multi-taskers. Should I start a rant on it isn't fair? Why can't men and women appreciate their differences without getting defensive?
Well, you brought up "inductive reasoning" in order to refute my Polgar argument. So I assumed you would be down for a discussion about epistemology and the problem of induction. But if all you wanted to do is to rant about "women complaining about something" I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Judit Polgar played at the top levels of chess. Therefore, women in general are just as good as men.
If you are refering to me, please let me quote myself: "Judit, certainly, proved that women can compete at the highest level." So the argument is that the existence of one black swan is enough to prove the existence of black swans.
Apart from that, the fact that there are more men in the top 100, doesn't necessarily prove that men in general are better chess players, as there are also more men at the very bottom of the rating scale...
If women can compete at the highest levels of chess it would have been proven in the last 150 years without Judith being the only exception. Inductive reasoning. I might add if women can compete with men on a level playing field FIDE wouldn't have invented titles just for women.
This is not how it works. If you have seen thousands of white swans, but no black swan, you can assume that there are no black swans through inductive reasoning. However, the moment one single black swan shows up, it refutes the whole theory. You cannot say, black swans still don't exist, because this black swan didn't show up earlier...
That's why science tries to falsify their theories, and not to verify them.
That's how you refute deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning.
All men are mortal.
I am a man.
Therefore, I am mortal.
However, if you found a man that was immortal it would refute the entire reasoning. Inductive reasoning would suggest that very few women can compete at the highest levels of chess at any given time because that is how it has always been in the past.
However, if you were to say:
Men are better than women at chess.
OP is a woman.
Therefore, she is not as good as men at chess.
You wouldn't even need Judit to prove this false as there are many men who are worse than women at chess and many women in the top 1% of chess players.
But you could look at her rating and determine that there are many men who are probably better than her and probably want to help her improve just as they would for a man with her rating.