
by peterroyal76 » 27 Aug 2009 20:34
by Royalee » 27 Aug 2009 20:37
peterroyal76 Is this the worst poll ever?
by The Cap » 27 Aug 2009 20:44
by Hogmeister Royal » 27 Aug 2009 20:45
Royaleepeterroyal76 Is this the worst poll ever?
Yep.
by phil in cornwall » 27 Aug 2009 20:47
Royaleepeterroyal76 Is this the worst poll ever?
Yep.
by Royalee » 27 Aug 2009 20:48
Idealpeterroyal76 Is this the worst poll ever?
Why? Because you don't agree with it doesn't make it so.
1 in 5 who voted wants Rodgers out now. A lot of the others just want to give him more time, and then get him out.
He's bought himself some time with these signings, so lets see how it goes. I still don't rate him as a manager, he's not the finished article and I'd want him to do his learning elsewhere than here.
by Platypuss » 27 Aug 2009 20:51
winchester_royalPlatypusswinchester_royal Well I'm a falsificationalist. So unless you can prove me wrong the hypothesis stands.
That's not how these things work you know...
It's how falsification works.....as opposed to inductivism.
by winchester_royal » 27 Aug 2009 20:52
Platypuss
As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.
by Platypuss » 27 Aug 2009 20:58
winchester_royalPlatypuss
As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.
Au contraire.
If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.
by winchester_royal » 27 Aug 2009 20:58
Platypusswinchester_royalPlatypuss
As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.
Au contraire.
If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.
I'm not convinced that that hypothesis is properly falsifiable withour better definitions....
by RoyalBlue » 27 Aug 2009 21:06
by Arch » 27 Aug 2009 21:18
winchester_royalPlatypuss
As a Popperian then I'm sure you'll agree that under falsificationism, he doesn't need to "prove" you wrong, just find one valid counter-example. He has (Burns), so your hypothesis fails.
Au contraire.
If you look at my original hypothesis, I say that they USUALLY succeed. Therefore you will need a majority of counter-examples to falsify my theorem.
by The Cap » 28 Aug 2009 21:23
BR fully aware of the pitfalls surrounding the rebuild and the need for experience to gell the team, boy is he desperate to succeed
by Sir Rodger Doyle » 29 Aug 2009 00:21
by Very near...far away » 29 Aug 2009 06:04
by The Cap » 29 Aug 2009 11:19
Round your house and sh1t on your doorstep. Maybe push some through your letter box for good measure.
by chandog » 29 Aug 2009 11:47
Very near...far away Spelling the manager's name wrong must go!
Tw@tty polls must go!
by Snowball » 29 Aug 2009 11:48
by Lamberts Tipple » 29 Aug 2009 12:31
by winchester_royal » 16 Sep 2009 22:15
Ideal I have reset/edited the poll, so we can see if the results will be different at this point in time.
I say: SACK RODGERS NOW.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 323 guests