William wrote:
>> "The test of a first rate in intelligence is to be sure something is art
>> even when still unsure."
I wrote:
>>
> If I get what you have in mind, I can't agree. Consider:
>
> "I'm sure I'm going to win this race."
> "You can't be sure."
> "I know that, but I'm still sure."
This is a poor analogy. William says "unsure," which I take to mean that he
is
undecided about the factual basis of a statement. That is, he has not made
up
his mind about a present occurence.
Your comparison uses "sure" to indicate knowledge of a future occurence
(the
outcome).
William speaks about present knowledge; you speak of future speculation.
I don't think I do, Michael. I am in both instances talking about current
occurrences -- the alleged current sureties. The first speaker says "I am
sure." He then concedes he can't be sure, but he asserts he nevertheless is
sure. Your line ("he has not made up his mind about a present occurrence") is
flatly contradicted by his statement "I'm still sure."
The second speaker ("You can't be sure.") is saying the first speaker does
not have sufficient grounds for his current surety. At issue is not a future
actuality, it's about the first speaker's having made up his mind, his
current conviction.
You left out my next line: "That may bespeak confidence, [I add now: even
sometimes enviable confidence,] but it does not evidence to me what I'd call
a first rate intelligence."
