If you can’t even follow the Mathematics of error margins when using one easy to measure characteristic as a stand-in for another harder to measure characteristic which is positively correlated with the former but not by a factor of 1 and whose correlation factor actually changes by the very action you’re justifying, and, even more more sadly, have to resort to calling it “pseudo-explanation”, there is no point in engaging with you using logic because that’s not the level you’re operating at.
Enjoy your quasi-religious relation to your ideological beliefs.
If you can’t even follow the Mathematics of error margins when using one easy to measure characteristic as a stand-in for another harder to measure characteristic which is positively correlated with the former but not by a factor of 1 and whose correlation factor actually changes by the very action you’re justifying, and, even more more sadly, have to resort to calling it “pseudo-explanation”, there is no point in engaging with you using logic because that’s not the level you’re operating at.
Enjoy your quasi-religious relation to your ideological beliefs.
I provided you with a very basic example in which your “mathematical impossibility” breaks down.
So far you’ve stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with “mathematical impossibility”.
You are correct though, you can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to get to their conclusions.
Saves me some time, good luck.