Hi Leo, Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes:
> Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >> >> Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes: >> >> > Let us assume for the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug >> > into Guix. There are a number of ways this can happen, but let's >> > focus on the important distinction here, which is me purposefully >> > introducing that bug vs. it happening due to oversight. >> > >> > Let us imagine the following four scenarios: >> > 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am. >> > 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not. >> > 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not. >> > 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am. >> >> This is a false dilemma <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma>, >> because you've missed a very important case, namely: >> >> 5. You assume *nothing*. > I think you're nitpicking here. I don't think so. > clearly I either have evil intentions or I don't – there's no middle > ground. Yes, I agree with this. > Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil > intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't. That's true also, but this is a different dichotomy than the one you presented above. In the sentence above, the dichotomy is between: (1) You assume bad faith (2) You do not assume bad faith In your list of scenarios above, there's a (false) dichotomy between: (1) You assume bad faith (2) You assume good faith It's a false dichotomy because neither of these is the logical negation of the other. They cannot both be true, but they _can_ both be false. In other words, I think that you have conflated "not assuming bad faith" with "assuming good faith". Do you see the difference? This is not mere nitpicking. It's a very important distinction. It's analogous to being forced to choose between "faith in god" and "atheism", without allowing for the possibility of "agnosticism". Does that make sense? >> This is, in fact, the current scenario. I'm not making any >> assumptions. >> That is truly the state of my mind on this question, and I think it's >> the only rational position to take. > Which one is the rational position now? Not assuming evil intentions > or assuming them? I think the only rational position to take here is to not make assumptions. Regards, Mark -- Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
