On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a > > very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until > > we have a reason to do otherwise. > > Translation: "LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!" [No response, I just think I'll quote this in case anybody missed it] > > I hypothesise that you are a gerbil. Gerbils can't form rational > > arguments. Therefore you are wrong. > > > > Your burden-of-proof notion is completely backwards, and the above is > > an example of why. The burder of proof rests upon the one who wants to > > introduce an assertion. > > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational arguments. It is logically impossible for you to disprove this, because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic, you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to draw any conclusions within the current situation). > >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of > >> women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding, > >> coding in general, and CS overall? > >Sunspots. It's at least as convincing. > > Manoj was talking about "free software coding, and CS overall" in > addition to Debian as a whole. He asked for an alternative. His suggestion was that there was only one possible explanation, which is clearly false. This isn't very interesting, it's foundational logic. > The HOWTO you reference also deals with > the larger scope as an example. Which is apropos of nothing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature