[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 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.

[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

Reply to: