From: David B Lightstone <david.lightstone@...>
Date: 2001-12-21T23:34:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29226] What is the evidence that it works?

Renamed subject title.
If you don't like the selected title, change it

"Vladimir" <truediogen@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4837660.0112210558.6411a73e@posting.google.com...
> Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message
news:<0A32756ADADA363F.070372C414654C16.C0220F403DBE0589@lp.airnews.net>...
> > On 17 Dec 2001 04:56:07 -0800, truediogen@my-deja.com (Vladimir)
> > wrote:
>
> > Tthere's no water-walking involved. A little consideration and inquiry
> > would have shown how it's done and why it works as well as it does.
>
> Oh stop that! No more 'it works coz it works, but I don't know why.'
> Try to take on opposite position and look how "convincing" the
> statements of that kind are...
>
> Any thoughts of why it's happening to work in the given case?

I tried to circumvent the 'it works coz it works' argument, by
pointing out an abduction argument. (Best of breed features
properly selected by netorious experts, it will work). The
closest thing I could get as evidence either way  was a statement
that I paraphrase as -

You can't prove that any methodology works.

When asked for evidence the spokesmodels sometimes refer
to books that have been written on the subject. Apparently they
believe that once they publish a claim the claim is valid. They
certainly have conviently forgot that you can't prove that any
methodology works