What is it?
Can someone explain it to me please.
I thought that logic was a process of reaching a logical conclusion based on understanding logical arguments.
If the logical arguments were true then the logical conclusion must also be true.
For example
Logical argument 1 = All events in life that are accidental are actually deliberate.
Logical argument 2 = All events in life that are deliberate are actually accidental.
Logical conclusion = Schumacher stoppage at Rascasse was deliberate therefore it was accidental.
Then we have the performance of Felipe Massa.
Logical Argument 1. Massa is employed by Ferrari
Logical Argument 2. Ferrari do not employ bad drivers
Logical Argument 3. Ferrari did not employ Ayrton Senna
Logical conclusion = Ayrton Senna is a bad driver.
Logic ?
posted on 2/6/13
Waiting
posted on 2/6/13
In motorsport a quick lap is hampered by errors
A driver drives a perfect lap with no errors and takes pole
Another driver makes numerous mistakes but misses out on pole by a tenth
Logic implies if the driver didn't make mistakes he would have been on pole by some margin
posted on 3/6/13
Logic
A driver is leading a race on course for a win
Driver is asked to pull over and let team mate win
Driver since then has been asked to play second fiddle to said driver
Driver is now demotivated and can't be bothered anymore
posted on 3/6/13
Martial has a very short but convenient memory. Back in 2007 he claimed that he used logic to justify his personal irrational hatred of Lewis Hamilton.
Back in 2007 I asked him what he thought his understanding of “logic” was and he refused to reply. If he did not understand logic then there is no hope for him now.
He could of course post on his own article what he thinks is his understanding of logic.
Over to you Martial
Martial does not even understand what a conundrum is never mind a comma.
So Massa is a good driver and then also a bad driver. Logic I suppose.
posted on 9/6/13
"Logical conclusion = Ayrton Senna is a bad driver."
Attitudes at Ferrari have changed over the years. Enzo himself took very much the "light-bulb" apprroach to drivers he didn't like while adoring those whose talent and/or personality he admired, those included Guy Moll, Tazio Nuvolari, Peter Collins and Gilles Villeneuve.
This sort of behaviour was totally unacceptable to Ferrari, and anybody else who is a motor sport fan, to be honest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNLHGJUGTQ
With the death of Enzo, Ferrari appears to have become more of an anonymous corporate conglomerate, more Amercan than Italian in culture, hence the "success at any price" attitude they now have.
As for Senna, I am informed a deputation of drivers met him round the bike sheds after qualifying for Monaco 1985, whether or not that happened I have no evidence, however, he certainly never did it again!
posted on 14/6/13
Well, they must have been riding those bikes during quali in 1988.... One and a half seconds, at Monaco !!!!
posted on 14/6/13
Logical Argument 3. Ferrari did not employ Ayrton Senna
Well they tried to.