From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Larry McVoy" <lm@bitmover.com>, "Robert White" <rwhite@casabyte.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:05:01 -0700
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEOBDOAA.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20030625210944.GB11956@work.bitmover.com>
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2366
Lines: 45


> The fact that you aren't someone who has run a business doesn't, as you
> say, necessarily mean that you are less skilled but it certainly, without
> any room for disagreement, means you are less experienced.  Experience is
> a valuable thing, to me if not to you.  A very valuable thing.  I'm not
> discounting your words, I've read them, thought about them, and decided
> that I value them less than I value information coming from people with
> experience in running a business.

	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.

	Sure, if someone is a raving lunatic, you might not bother to look at what
they're saying at all. On the other hand, if Bill Gates thinks a business
plan is a good one, you might pay more attention to what he's saying.

	But by your own words, you have already read his argument and thought about
it. At this point, the argument either stands or falls on its merits. If you
can't evaluate it, then you couldn't evaluate it regardless of who made it,
and so you're in no position to have an opinion at all.

	It is definitely inappropriate, once you've committed to discussing
something, to then turn around and say that you can't evaluate competing
claims unless you also withdraw your own. If you can't evaluate competing
claims, then of what value is your opinion to anyone else?

	It is also inappropriate to say "I've talked to experts, this is the
impression they convey to me." Then when people attempt to refute your
claims, you say, "well, I trust the experts and that's what they say". Of
course, you're the one who gets to decide what qualifies as an expert, and
it's never based upon how well-reasoned their arguments are. Let the experts
make their own arguments. If you're not competent to defend the points and
respond to rebuttals, you're not competent to decide who an expert is.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/