Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment

"David Cressey" <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:fo%Me.9177$Je.2459_at_newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... >
> And that's what I don't like about dogmatic responses. They tend to
assume
> that design judgements fall on a simple linear scale from badness to
> goodness. Goodness is not a one dimensional measure. And that's why I
stay
> way from dbdebunk.

I fear you miss the point of DBDebunk. I doubt Pascal's purpose is to tell us how to do things (since--for one thing--he knows very well we haven't the tools or products to do things "his" way). I believe his purpose is to show that a systematic, logical way of thinking can take us places where common sense fails or misleads. His purpose is to show that "design judgements" are improved when one has a grasp of a mathematically respectable theory for what one is doing (and I don't mean theory in the sense it is often used, as a synonym for conjecture or speculation). And his often stated purpose is to point out that there are good reasons to think that better tools are possible, and that we won't get them if we don't know to ask for them.

Making it a policy to stay away from DBDebunk seems rather dogmatic to me. There is lots there that is good, and most of the rest is worth testing intellectually even if you ultimately decide it's wrong. Staying away from DBDebunk as a matter of policy seems dogmatic at best, and may even be arrogant.

Roy Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 11:29:39 CEST