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 "proven". "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 do. > > 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/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
