Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

I'm never been particularily convinced by it either. But the point is simply that an indicator for something, in and of itself, is not necessarily similar to that thing.

Nor I.

 

Because even if the triad turned out to be 100% verified, was never wrong, always was dead-on in its predictions...

...Bedwetting still wasn’t considered an ‘indicator.’ It had to be bedwetting, in conjunction with torturing/murdering animals or setting things on fucking fire. The model demanded 2/3. One on its own was nothing at all.

So even in that case, the best indicator of a person potentially being a violent person turned out to be...a past that involved being violent.

So anyway, moving on from the self-defeating example..

Why are you under the impression that indicators can’t be blatantly obvious?

 

But that's what indicators are. They are not conclusive on their own. I feel like we're either disagreeing for the sake of it, or not disagreeing at all, here.

 

‘Indicators’ are just the things that communicate ‘what something is.’

So when a radical is a person behaving radically, what ‘indicates’ that they are such a thing?

(Spoilers: here’s how we do it when we’re trying to establish what a person is, when they’re being defined by their actions.)

(1) They’re a person
(2) That the behaviour is considered radical
(3) They’re engaging in it.