Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:21:54 GMT
Message-ID: <6XeRg.37373$>

Marshall wrote:

> 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.

Are you suggesting that she uses "that" a lot? While that might be suggestive of male sex if she were an anglophone, I don't know that it would mean that much for someone that has a different mother tongue.

>>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

Thank you, at least, for modelling intellectual honesty. Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 20:21:54 CEST

Original text of this message