Re: The Promise of Forth
- From: John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:00:53 -0600
Bruce McFarling wrote:
On Apr 1, 2:29 pm, Aleksej Saushev <a...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Bruce McFarling <agil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:On Mar 25, 10:52 pm, John Doty <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Except that projects in other languages don't experience such severe
problems. This is shown by the large bases of shared code that are
created and understood by large collaborations with very little
management. So it *is* a language problem.
Again, you present evidence that is compatible with your conclusion,
as well as others, as if it supports your conclusion, and no others,
and therefore is persuasive evidence for your conclusion.
Sorry? Could you articulate what incompatibility you see?
'Cause I don't see any.
The problem with confirmation bias is that compatibility between
evidence and conclusion is not on its own sufficient to make a
persuasive case for a conclusion.
The confirmed hypothesis is the best hypothesis when no other testable hypothesis is on the table.
--
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to use logic for that purpose are abusing it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Promise of Forth
- From: Bruce McFarling
- Re: The Promise of Forth
- References:
- Re: The Promise of Forth
- From: Aleksej Saushev
- Re: The Promise of Forth
- From: Bruce McFarling
- Re: The Promise of Forth
- Prev by Date: Re: The Promise of Forth
- Next by Date: Re: The Promise of Forth
- Previous by thread: Re: The Promise of Forth
- Next by thread: Re: The Promise of Forth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
