From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why Women Shut Up (And Men Don't Want To)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:14:21 GMT

In article <michael.723848266@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec7.140123.24363@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.034525.1741@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>>Oh good.  So it's so easy to pervasive it will be *easy* for you to
>>>>>prove it.  Go for it.  Let's see some proof.
>>>>
>>>>Just curious rini, how does anybody prove anything on the net?
>>>
>>>I don't think that proving anything *on* the net is any different than
>>>proving something *off* the net.  You bring forth a preponderance of
>>>evidence, or you work with logic.  It's not that hard. 
>>Evidence, even a preponderance, is not proof. And I do not think that the
>>things are equivalant on and off the net. A working demonstration (if
>>applicable) goes a long way towards convincing, and is not possible on
>>the net. 
>
>Oh my!  Now we are arguing strict definitions instead of trying to
>understand what someone means.  Ok, lets go get out the dictionary and
>how well Mister Payne has done.

Completely wrong, I -am- aurgung meanings.
 
>In my copy of Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language,
>proof is defined as "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true,
>or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence.
>3. act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing
>to the proof. 3. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstrations.
>5. Law.  (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight."
>
>Well, I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.  3 is recursive by
>definition, but if we look at 1, 2, 3, and 5, it seems pretty clear that
>preponderance of the evidence can indeed suffice as proof.  Certainly it
>does in court on a daily basis.
>
>It all boils down to what is convincing -- and that is a subjective opinion.

Let me restate this, there is no -absolute- proof.

>For people like Robert Shaeffer, its a function of how much the proof
>already agrees with his opinion.  I don't know about Mister Payne, but
>obviously a preponderance of proof isn't good enough for him.

No, you have it all wrong. There is no such thing as a "preponderance of 
proof", only a 'preponderance of evidence'. And I did not say what was good
enough, you invented that. I said the even a preponderance of evidence is
not proof. If you doubt this, consider that there is a preponderance of 
evidence for the existance of both the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
 
>But one thing is clear.  Mister Payne is only correct when he says that
>isn't proof BY HIS OWN STANDARDS.  So telling you that you are incorrect
>is not strictly true.

One thing is clear, I said nothing of the sort. Another thing that is clear
is that you have a chip on your shoulder (why?) and are not above resorting
to personal attack. This does not support your argument. Rather it detracts
from your credibility. That and the fact that you seem to think that I have
said things which I did not say.
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism