Here is another example of faulty logic from your Reply #1334
I SAY:
* There is no documented evidence to contradict the April 11 report on the timing of the routing,
YOU SAY:
Given that, as far as I know, the alleged April 11 report does not say anything about when the routing process began, contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible-- how could I contradict something that the alleged report doesn't establish?
IN RESPONSE I SAY:
Huh?
If the record says nothing about it, then yeah, contradictory evidence is required.
While nothing in any of the project documents precludes routing before April 1911, precluding is not proving, either. And basing an argument on an assumption is faulty logic, pure and simple. In truth, if any one of those” logical arguments/assumptions” you make is wrong, your whole theory is probably wrong. And, I think some of them are wrong.
Lastly, I think your quote that “contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible” best sums up many of your arguments to date - you don’t think you need evidence to prove your points. I am glad you finally tripped up and admitted it!
Jeff, your comments baffle me. I am not sure I understand your argument, but so far as I can tell you are saying that
because the alleged April report establishes that planning was taking place in the spring, then the swap must have happened in the spring. While I agree that planning was still taking place in the spring, I believe that the evidence establishes the
the planning began much earlier, before Merion agreed to purchase the land. I also believe your theory is inconsistent with this evidence, including the Francis statement.
As for your claim that I don't think I need evidence to prove my points, I think you must have me confused with some others.
-- I don't need to contradict the alleged April 1911 report, because my position is consistent with anything allegedly in it.
-- My evidence for the timing of the planning is the same as its always been, and includes the Francis description, read in conjunction with what else we know about what was happening in 1910, including the creation of that illustrative map.
And Jeff, it is not impossible to argue with faulty logic, as I just demonstrated above.
-- You rely on the alleged April report as if that alleged report contradicted my position regarding the timing of the planning.
-- That report does not contradict my position regarding the timing of the planning.
-- Therefore your logic fails.
--------------------------------------------------
Back to the meat of the subject, rather than your method, I will say that in essence, you and I agree on everything but the timing of the land swap and perhaps the exact degree of involvement of CBM, but we know he was involved heavily.
Great. Then we are in agreement on what is really the major issue.
As to the three acres, you say you don't understand my position. Let me try it again a slightly different way.
I understand your point that it is possible that Francis meant to say only that he had the idea to extend the land north of Haverford College border while the land purchase is under consideration. However, I read his comments literally, too -"my one contribution to the layout"- (which I take as planning, and not surveying, since he says he does that for "many hours" just before) as contributing to the ROUTING and not just the idea to extend the land.
So if we read THAT part of his statement literally, AND add in what the record shows:
• Francis was involved in 1911:
• The final routing plans were taking place in April 1911, and the swap was part of the final plan
• How the borders were formed to the routing, and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved.
• They started blasting to build the 16th green, which they could not have known until its location was established (taking Francis literally)
Then, I think the April routing theory holds up better because it is better supported by primary documents and doesn’t rely on the same documents not saying what they say or meaning what they mean. Your theory needs Francis to be involved earlier than the record shows, but for which you can provide no proof from the records, that doesn’t depend on “your understanding of the facts” (which, in fact, is the cause of this whole dispute)
This seems to be sort of a mystery dish of logical analysis. You list out ingredients and apparently dump them into a pot, and then pronounce that you have baked a chocolate cake, or some such thing. I have no idea how you think these ingredients could ever produce the result you claim. And I don't think "your understanding of the facts" is sound.
For example, take the mystery three acres. You wrote: "
and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved." Can you tell me specifically what the report says about this? And how it fits into your theory? Because I don't get it, and definitely don't get "your understanding" of this.
- What in the record establishes that three acres was needed for the routing?
- What in the record indicates that this three acres had anything to do with the swap?
LIkewise, 'your understanding of the facts' is that "
and the swap was part of the final plan." I don't get it. While the results of the swap were obviously included in the final plan, the general results of the swap are incorporated on the Nov. 1910 map.
But, once again, I can understand how you derive your conclusion, even if I am more certain than ever that much of that is derived from some faulty logic. I know saying that you use faulty logic is sort of rude, but I believe it is true. I suspect you will retort (with some justification) that some of my observations above (as in which parts of Francis to take literally, in response to some of your use of the same words) is just as much speculation. Guilty as charged.
If I was really using faulty logic, you wouldn't have to just repeatedly accuse me of it, you could simply
prove me wrong by pointing out specifically where my logic fails. Despite all your talk of "faulty logic" you've done no such thing. And if I may say so your attempts to do so have applied some very faulty logic, case above in point.
But, I would be interested in your take of my admittedly new observation on Francis - did he contribute to the final routing as he appears to me to say, or did he contribute to the idea to extend the land north of the college boundary earlier and then bow out? Or do you assume he did both, even though there are not any recorded mentions of two different contributions anywhere in the record that I could find?
You present a false choice. The very notion that surveying and working the instruments out on the course to specifically lay out the course on the ground are not contributions to the layout of the course is unsupportable on a number of levels. As to the general routing, according to Francis he came up with the idea which allowed them to fit the last five holes on the course, and that, I believe, happened before the Nov. 15 1910 map was drawn.
Now I guess it could be that Francis came up with this idea in 1910, and it was expressed on the Nov. 1910 map, but that they didn't want to pull the trigger on it until CBM had a chance to see it, and so they held of on finally committing to it until CBM saw it in person and approved of it, and when they went to CBM at NGLA it was one of the many plans layouts they had considered, but then that would be a lot of speculation.