This has developed into a debate on the merits of Sullivan's document
draft-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations and my (Anderson's) document
draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status.
Inline:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I have read Dean's comments, and I believe they reveal that Dean and I
> have fundamentally different ideas about reasoning and knowlege.
That much is clear. I (Anderson) follow the scientific method. This is
the mainstream view of civilization for the pursuit of science and
engineering.
> My view is that there are vast areas of human experience in which
> knowledge is not well-defined as "justified true belief".
This is all well and good for religion and politics. It is not the case
for scientific inquiry and engineering. In the fields of science and
engineering, we are concerned with facts and reasoning.
> I believe that I am in the mainstream of contemporary epistemology in
> this view.
Unless you consider the mainstream to be represented by "intelligent
design", you are not in the mainstream.
> And this view is what underpins my critique of the proposed -anderson-
> draft: I think it too often dresses up as certain truth propositions
> about which competent practitioners of the art sometimes disagree.
Competency is the ability to give facts. Credibility relates to the
veracity or truth of the facts given. Telecom, like most industries, is
organized into science, engineering, and craft. Skills and competency as
a craftsman do not always translate into skills and competency as an
engineer, particularly when that person doesn't accept the scientific
method as the means of conducting science and engineering, and proposes
to replace the analysis of facts and logic by nothing but fervent
belief.
If the argument isn't based in fact and reason, then it is hard to
consider one making such irrational argument as a competent and credible
practitioner of any subject that is categorized as 'science and
engineering'. Indeed, certainly they are not a credible practitioner of
science and engineering. Regardless of their title as "engineer", they
are not performing or producing anything that could be categorized as
'science and engineering'.
The only objections to the statements of fact in my (Anderson's)
document have been of 'fervent opinion', not contrary fact.
In contrast, Sullivan's document is marked by false claims made vague
and ambiguous.
> I think that competent practitioners can disagree, and that a document
> that purports to offer advice about current practices should outline
> how those disagreements might have practical effects.
Competent practitioner's can't disagree without evidence and facts
supporting their views. "Fervent belief" is not a competent or
credible basis for disagreement. The label of "Opinion" only applies
to those things which _can't_ be proven true or false. Offering up
views as 'opinion' which have been proven false is not something a
competent, credible engineer would ever do. Offering up as 'fact' claims
which haven't been proven true is also something that a competent,
credible engineer wouldn't do.
Competent and credible practitioner's can certainly disagree about
speculation, opinion, and even facts. Disagreement often spurs further
inquiry. However, they can't substitute opinion and fervent belief for
fact, and they can't dismiss objections to their unsubstantiated claims
as mere disagreement.
> I believe there is a current working group document on reverse mapping
> that offers exactly such an outline.
Sullivan's document offers views that aren't based in fact, and obscures
facts known to be true and claims known to be false; causing a
reasonable, but uninformed person to impute as fact things that actually
aren't fact, but are even known to be false. Sullivan's document
misleads readers.
> I do, however, have to take special issue with one claim Dean Anderson
> makes, because it's a particularly pernicious form of scientism, and
> one that I think must not be left unchallenged.
>
> > Actually, assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning are
> > exactly what make up a valid argument.
>
> A valid argument is merely an argument whose premises, if true, would
> entail the conclusion.
This statement is true of the logic of the argument. The argument is
logically valid when the premises, if true, would entail the conclusion.
> The validity of an argument is classically entirely unrelated to the
> truth of its premises or conclusion. For instance:
The "classically" has nothing to do with it. It isn't the case that
'once we used logic, and now we don't.' You are confusing logical
validity with soundness. Let me give you some definitions, from a
course I took in Logical Analysis by Dr. Leroy Meyer.
Valid Argument: Premises imply the conclusions
Sound Argument: Valid with actually true premises.
An unsound argument is a kind of fallacy.
> I have no idea whether the conclusion or any premise is true, because
> I don't know what "gerwuffle" and "blort" mean. But I am sure the
> argument is nevertheless valid.
Yes. It is valid, but possibly unsound.
> I also note that the argument has nothing to do with scientific or
> juducial reasoning.
Your statement is incorrect. Indeed, logic has a _lot_ to do with
scientific and judicial reasoning. These fields use logic, and add to
logical inferences the results of testing for which premises are
actually true, and therefore discover which conclusions are not
fallacies. Of course, logically invalid arguments are also fallacies.
> I'll also observe in passing that the issue of RFC 2119 words in any
> document on this topic is, I suspect, a matter of taste and current
> practice.
I'm glad to see that you have changed your mind. We finally agree on
this.
> That there are BCPs that happen to include such language is therefore
> irrelevant.
Wrong again. This fact was relevant to your prior claim that such
language never belongs in a BCP.
> I don't think they are used appropriately in the -anderson- draft,
There, we disagree. I only use these terms in the Security
Considerations section, where such use is recommended. You still have
provided no contrary facts---that is, no competent and credible
disagreement to the statements in the Security Considerations section.
You simply object to clear statements of fact that contrast with the
vaguely contrary statements in your document.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
