Actually, by focusing on half of what I said and ignoring the other half I think you're proving my belief that you're misunderstanding what people will believe.
There's plenty of evidencial history to give us an idea of what people will believe. Finding what they won't believe is considerably more difficult, though it usually falls into one of several catagories:
- They (the majority) won't believe whatever is generally thought by their peers to be unbelievable,
- They won't believe what they've been taught by teachers to be untrue,
- They won't believe what they've been told by religious leaders is untrue,
- They won't believe what they've been told by political leaders is untrue.
- They won't believe what scientists have told them is untrue.
In general there'll be a mix, a juggling in each, weighing and balancing to come up with individual refutations of physicial, spiritual, intellectual phenomena.
What they can mostly be depended upon not to do is base their non-belief on personal experience and observation except in isolated instances.
You're definitely showing that you've either misunderstood my point or you're simply ignoring it.
Possibly.
If somebody claims that they've found that past drawings predict future drawings I agree that very few people will believe them, but that's not the same as claiming that you've refined the ability to use current conditions and the forces that act upon them to predict future conditions.
My point also. Selective belief and rejection of belief based upon preconcieved, ironclad repudiation of a concept. It assumes, not based on evidence, but rather based on nothing more than 'belief', that something's true.
For all I know, somebody might actually have developed the ability to accurately predict future drawings, but as far as I know, nobody has done even a halfway decent job of exlaining and substantiating such a claim.
Two entirely different issues. One depends on observation and evidence. The other depends upon understanding the phenomenon behind that evidence.
For the evidence on this issue, look at the Yesterday Winners page of the LP Predictions page day-by-day for the past two weeks.
We mightn't know how, mightn't know why. But what you see on those pages day-by-day provides a high degree of evidence that some people are doing precisely what it's believed can't be done.
They most aren't 'making money' on it, by the imaginary payoffs in the LP system. However, every time you see a 4 of 6 on a pick 6 game, a 4 of 5 on a pick 5 game, it was contained within a maximum of 50 prediction combinations.
Draw your own conclusions.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Jack