

And you know what?  There is no such method inherent in real life
either.  So I would assume you would endorse the notion that we 
cannot state, with any level of objectivity, that Mother Theresa
has accomplished more good in this world than Joseph Stalin.
After all, life on earth is a team effort.


Have you tried glasses?  I find them quite useful.  

After all, there must be some reason you choose to ignore the mounds
of evidence we present.  It's too bad you feel it necessary to close
your mind and eyes to knowledge; you live a poorer life as a result
of that choice.

Heck, I'd wager that you could predict a WS winner with greater
accuracy than Jeanne Dixon.  And you know why?  Because I have
full confidence that despite your protestations to the contrary,
you are quite capable of using the knowledge we can come up
with through statistical methods to boost your knowledge level.   


Have you tried calling a kettle black?


In other words, in your world, you cannot objectively state that
Jack Morris was more important to the Blue Jays than Al Leiter last
year.

In your world, that may indeed be true.  Fortunately, in the world
the rest of us occupy, it's not.

I hope you never serve on a jury, Roger.  I think the rest of the
jury would have to kill you.  "There's no way I can objectively
judge the defendant to be innocent or guilty.  You see, there are
2 billion other people on this planet.  We have no way of knowing
whether the defendant would have committed the crime if it wasn't
for all the other people on the planet.  We have no way of knowing
how the defendant would have acted had he been on a different planet,
because living on this planet is a team effort.  And no individual
committs a crime totally isolated from his society; he is a part of
that society.  That being case, anything I have to say on his
culpability would be absolute subjectivity, so I refuse to vote."