MSchott's point is still valid, turtleback. You did it with me & now you're doing it with him. You're attacking the poster rather than the post, by inferring those that don't think like you 'lack critical thinking skills.'
I know you hate having 18>14 tossed out there...'It's more complicated than that!"
Only if you want it to be.
In other words, only if you believe the one with 14 is the best.
Those of use that believe the one with 18 is still the best aren't 'lacking' anything. We just disagree with you.
You confuse the notions of opinion and critical thinking. Here is what critical thinking is:
Now how does your assertion that majors are all that count fit into that? You do not claim that you thought Hagen was the GOAT before Jack. You have not asserted that John Daly was a greater player than Tom Kite. You have your criteria and yet it seems to apply selectively.
What I have done is shown by a lot of things, which you have dismissed as nuance, that Tiger has had the overall more impressive career. And that is based on a lot of different metrics. Winning percentage, scoring average advantage over contemporaries, Vardon trophies, Player of the Year awards, number of dominant seasons, degree of dominance in those seasons, consecutive winning streaks, consecutive major wins, just to name a few. To which you come down to one metric, that never applied to anyone other than the guy you want to put in first place. No one other than Jack Nicklaus has ever been considered the GOAT based on the number of major wins. Not one single player.
You say that I reject 18>14 as the sole criteria because I want Tiger to be the best, but I think the evidence is overwhelming that it is exactly the opposite - you cling to 18>14 because that is the ONLY WAY you can claim that Jack is the best. You make that argument the sine qua non of the greatness debate because you have no other argument to make. You have decided Jack must be the GOAT and so you find and cling to the only thing you can. Whereas I can cite factor after factor after factor in Tiger's favor - and they are things that traditionally were looked at as a measure of a players greatness. Before Jack, Hogan rather than Hagen was more of a consensus GOAT. And he was considered the GOAT for many of the same reasons that I cite in Tiger's support.
Now be honest, which of our processes and conclusions best fits the bolded portion of what critical thinking means?
PS: and in neither case was I attacking the poster rather than the post. I was attacking posts that drew conclusions that were not based on critical thinking, that made no arguments, just assertions. As you continue to do.