Hi, On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Here's the problem that I don't think many people appreciate: logical >> arguments suck just as much as personal experience in answering these >> questions. You can make perfectly structured arguments until you are >> blue in the face, but without real data to premise them on, they are >> no better than the gut feelings. They can often be significantly worse >> if the strength of the logic gets confused with the strength of the >> premise. > > I need to frame this (or make a sig to put it in, the internet > equivalent of a wooden frame :). Thank you, Robert.
Yes, except that, at its most extreme, it renders reasonable argument pointless, and leads to resolving disputes by authority rather than discussion. Of course we don't work or think in realm that can be cleared of bias or error, but it would be difficult be a scientist and fail to notice that - agreeing - things that really should be true, aren't true and - disagreeing - despite all the threatening brackets, reasoned argument, and careful return to data, do work in increasing our understanding. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
