Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 23 Sep 2006 11:17:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1159035461.161473.18310@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
> I wonder whether this last conclusion is anti-empirical.

By "anti-empircal" I guess you mean "not supported by observation" rather than "refuted by observation?" I claim that there are rhetorical techniques that correlate with sex, and that my observations of the troll's use of rhetoric leads me to the conclusion that he is a man. However this is of course a weak conclusion.

Amusing idea: write a machine learning program and feed it texts for which one knows the sex of the author, in order to produce a technique for establishing sex from someone's writings. I imagine it could be modestly successful.

> I really have no opinion on Pamela's
> gender, and I don't see how it matters.

You're certainly right that it doesn't matter.

> Are you not creating an opportunity to impugn your own
> credibility? Is there a need to?

Fair points all.

Marshall Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 13:17:41 CDT