Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Timothy Miller]

David Schwartz wrote:

> 
> 	If I see an argument, I don't give a damn who made it. I evaluate the
> argument based upon its merits. If I'm not competent to evaluate the
> argument on its merits, I'm not competent to have an opinion at all.
> Essentially, you're arguing that ad hominem is a valid reasoning tool, even
> to reject arguments in which you see no flaw.
> 

This reminds me of when I was a "creationist" and arguing on 
talk.origins.  I had, in my opinion, evaluated the evidence and decided 
that the earth was created by God 6500 years ago and there was a global 
flood, and a bunch of other stuff, and that since I could come up with a 
coherent explanation for every counter-argument people would throw at 
me, then I must have been right.

The truth is that I WASN'T evaluating the evidence properly.  I was 
dismissing huge volumes of hard scientific data.  But things made sense 
to me anyhow.  What I'm trying to say is that you can use logic to 
support any argument you want, as long as you make up the right facts 
and contrive the right explanations.

Your argument is logically valid.  It's a nice self-contained system 
that makes sense, in its own little world.  But is it SOUND?  When 
compared against empirical evidence, does it stand up?  Until you have 
completely weighed the whole of one argument against the whole of 
another, then you can't compare them.  Until you have allowed yourself 
to experience the other side, you cannot evaluate its validity.

So, you have a good handle on the open source side of things.  Great. 
When it comes to open source theory, I'll listen to you.  But your 
judgement of the closed-source side is based on reasoning in a vacuum. 
You're making up your evidence by which you are judging it.  (This is 
exactly how I once treated evolutionary biology.)  Thus, when it comes 
to closed-source theory, I'm going to listen to Mr. McVoy.