["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.board.]
On 2008-03-13, David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4Qi*xKL9r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> While I might grant that people should be on the look out for these
>>> far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr. Richerby raises,
>>> they should not be considered as serious objections absent *any*
>>> sup****ting evidence.
>>
>> If by `sup****ting evidence', you mean an occasion on which the method
>> of cheating that I described has been used, of course I can't provide
>> any sup****ting evidence! We are discussing a hypothetical change to
>> the rules of chess that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
>> used in a high-level tournament.
>
> You are permitted to argue by analogy. Really I think if you think about
it,
As a matter of fact, no, you're not. Argument by analogy is a logical
fallacy.
You can illustrate by analogy, but you cannot build an argument on it,
because you
are equating two things that are not equal, and the differences may turn
out
to be significant. Analogy can be a fruitful source of new ideas, but
cannot
be regarded as solid evidence in favor of those ideas; that must be found
elsewhere.
> you will conclude that changing the scoring does not create cheating
> possibilities
> that aren't already present. So the absence of widespread cheating
evidence
> is meaningful.
>
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be re****ted to the authorities
|
