- #106
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 288
- 19
Not a lot got posted on the net before 1980, what with it not existing an' all.Tigers2B1 said:Well, I don't know what you think Occam's razor is doing here Njorl - but to be honest, you still don’t provide anything as support for your 'pre-1980 wealthy people' cheat on the SAT bare bones conclusion--- other than your repeating that it is so – and your anecdotal story. Is there sometime, anything, out there on the Net that supports that it was 'common' for 'wealthy people' to purchase their SAT scores 'pre-1980?' Anything??
No. You are constructing a strawman.Tigers2B1 said:And not to get ahead of ourselves – but after that maybe you can add how you reach the conclusion that Bush must have been one of those 'wealthy' who purchased his SAT score. I mean without concluding simply that because Bush belonged to a certain economic class it follows that he must have cheated ---
Now, I suppose your implication that Bush must have cheated runs like this ---
1. Bush was wealthy pre-1980.
2. *Bush was dumb pre-1980. (your conclusion)
3. *Wealthy people purchased SAT scores before 1980. (your conclusion)
4. Bush could not have made a 1206 on the pre-1980 SAT because he is dumb (conjecture reached from conclusion in number 2)
5. THEREFORE – because Bush being ‘wealthy’ (1) and dumb (2), HENCE - Bush must have purchased his pre-1980 SAT score.
I am a scientist. I treat it as a scientific problem. There is an observation - George Bush has a recorded score of 1206 for the SAT. There are many possible hypotheses for this:
1. He took the test and scored 1206.
2. He paid someone to take the test.
3. He had the records alterred after the fact.
4. The score is just an internet rumor.
etc.
My tools for verifying any hypothesis are weak. I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig through the necessary records nor interview people who took the exam with him.
My single most reliable tool, my own observations of George Bush, do not support hypothesis number one. I have never seen any evidence that he possesses above average intelligence. My argument was not that he paid someone to take the test, it was that there are other ways of obtaining that score, one of which was the paying of a surrogate.
By not showing up.Tigers2B1 said:Odd ---
Anyway – it's funny some people mention Bush's Cs and then create unsupported implications that his 1206 must have been purchased - but forget Al Gore's Fs. If you get Cs for just showing – I suppose a fella gets a D for not showing – but how in the heck does a guy get a F?--- must less Gore’s 5 Fs --- I mean, how can you do less than nothing and do it five times ---??
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm
The difference between Gore and Bush is that Al Gore has a list of accomplishments that display his intelligence. Yes, he has data that tend to undercut the hypothesis that he is intelligent, but he also has solid and reliable data that support such a hypothesis. I have heard him speak, read his writing and seen the fruit of his labor. Weighing such evidence, I consider that the positive evidence far outweighs the negative. For the negative data, there are plausible explanations of erroneous results.
For Bush, the problem is a complete lack of unassailable positive data, and a mountain of solid negative data. Is it possible that George Bush is intelligent enough to score 1206 on the SAT? Of course. I just don't find it to be likely.
Njorl