Please some explain this to me

[theprof00]

famousringo said:

theprof00 said:
that is my case in point ringo. Who is to say that you are the one using knowledge?

1. On a side note, I would like to see the people who used knowledge that this scenario would happen after the gamecube despite the wii pretty much upending every single analyst and investor.

2. Also as a side note, thousands upon thousands of people use very well documented and well founded evidence all the time are are proven wrong time and time again by the way things turn out.

3. Also: some of the biggest and most important/in depth science predictions are/were based on faith lol.
Hell quantum physics is pretty much all "if, then" based.

 

1. Sean Malstrom is well known, and even though many would disagree with some of his points and predictions, he did predict Nintendo's success, and he backed up his prediction with reasons rooted in business theory. Here's another:

http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html

He guards himself against actually predicting success (another one wary of absolutes), but he does understand how Nintendo's strategy could lead to great success.

Edit: I could also add that having all this knowledge doesn't mean that it is applied correctly. You make the same mistake as much of the industry by using the Gamecube as a predictor of Wii's success. People should have been using the DS as the predictor of how Wii would perform.

2. This is a matter of our knowledge being incomplete. Nowhere did I assert that past knowledge is complete, since it would be absurd to suggest that humans have ever been omniscient. I only asserted that past knowledge is all we have to make reasonable predictions, and anything else is useless guesswork.

3. I think you're confusing theory for faith. A theory is based on past experiences and observations and then experiments are usually designed to support the veracity of the theory. I doubt you'd find many physicists who agree with your assertion that quantum physics is based on faith rather than rigorous mathematics and experimentation.

This is getting way too much in depth. I asked that first question rhetorically, of course there will be someone that does predict it, but among the rather large majority of people, nobody could possibly have guessed correctly. (Like you said, even he doesn't completely jump in the water. He estimated, and saw how things could work, but was not someone who said it will work.)

The quantum physics things is where things get sticky. Most of it is based completely on past results and assumptions, none of it is concretely proven, and the science itself deals in things that can almost never be proven, or at least not within our lifetimes. Belief in something that cannot be proven? Sounds like faith to me.