[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:02:26PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:54:05PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
> > you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
> > standards for proof, it means that you can't prove it.
> Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that you can't work
> with what's available. I can think of countless examples in biology
> where people go on working assumptions because something isn't proven.
> I'm sure you can too. Your excuse is amazingly flimsy.

There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and

"To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
refer to these arguments as proofs" was, I believe, originally
referring to physics, but it was not intended as an example of what to

> > The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
> > of what it claimed to be.
> There are other anecdotes.

Which I was not talking about. Pay attention to the mails you are
replying to.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: