🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <schiller.726394556@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
|> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> [ discussion deleted ]
|> 
|> >While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
|> >uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
|> >a bit simplistic.  For example, 
|> 
|> [ ...]
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
|> >SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
|> >sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
|> 
|> 
|> To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a 
|> typical example of, well, ... arrgogance ! 
|> A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
|> evidence for false. 

Speaking of arrogance, perhaps a bit more study should be devoted
to the meanings of the terms here.  Do please try to distinguish
between "simple" and "simplistic".  While a case can be made that
dismissing a position (not an *argument* mind you) because it is
*simple* is a bad move, dismissing a position because it is
*simplistic* if perfectly all right.  Just get out your Webster's
and check the meanings.  You will discover that "false simplicity"
(and hence "false") is part of the *meaning* of this term.  Thus,
while "simplistic" is not *evidence* for falsity, "false" is a
part of its very meaning.

|> If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
|> one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
|> full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.

By *definition*, a *simplistic* solution is not a solution (think
along the lines of "false friend").

I did, by the way, not merely *label* the position as simplistic,
but went on at some length to indicate its flaws (which in any
event are well known).



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm