Self Standing Evidence Discussion

'Proof' that SelfStandingEvidence is a AntiPattern used for the purpose of trolling rather than a useful principle.

The proof goes by the way of ReductioAdAbsurdum?. Let's pretend that SelfStandingEvidence was truly sound principle. See where it may lead ...

We know that the field of complex numbers is algebraically complete ...

- Do we, really? -- jumps in the troll. I'm not convinced, prove it to me.
- You know if you pick a basic algebra text..
- BookStop! -- cries the troll further. Those books start from arbitrary axioms, and are written by no-good mathematicians. And mathematics IS NOT SCIENCE. If you really knew what you were talking about, you'd prove it to me, rather than engage in ArgumentFromAuthority.
- The "BookStop" comments don't apply. The complex field is complete because the FundamentalTheoremOfAlgebra? says that every polynomial of degree n has n solutions in complex numbers; one needn't go outside the complex field to solve any polynomial. That's a very short proof, but then you'd want a proof of the FundamentalTheoremOfAlgebra?, and that's where this gets silly, because there aren't any that are both short and easy to comprehend. However, if you just want an unusually short one (but not one that's easy to understand), see http://www.cut-the-knot.org/fta/vaggione.shtml -- due to issues with symbols, I can't paste it here (nor should I have to).
- Anyone doubting that the complex numbers are algebraically complete is being a HostileStudent. It's a long-settled issue. There is no controversy. The only reason to argue would be for the sake of argument itself. So let's not.
- I don't even know what this is supposed to be analogous to. My TypeTheory complaints? I didn't claim it wasn't "complete" or internally inconsistent. I am NOT complaining about the model, but its applicability. --top

Sure, in theory, one can feed the trolls and actually prove on a very long Wiki page that the field of complex number is algebraically complete. But what's the purpose? And besides, the troll in him will protest that the axiomatic construction of reals (and consequently of complex numbers) is arbitrary and doesn't match his psychology, etc, etc.

A bad analogy because it does not relate to anything here. This is not a math Wiki. A math Wiki can make different base assumptions about the reader than an IT Wiki.
On the contrary the analogy stands because it is you who claimed that MathIsNotScience? and mathematicians work with arbitrary axioms and so on, so forth. It is also similar to the way you use BookStop. This is a Wiki about programming and contributors are expected top have some background, or if they don't that they should be quieter and tried to learn something rather than whine about SelfStandingEvidence and complain about BookStop as if ignorance was a virtue.
BookStops are usually for people too lazy or too inarticulate to paraphrase.
No, the accusation of BookStops is for people too lazy to do their own homework.
My laziness can beat up your laziness :-) But, this does bring up the question of what constitutes WikiPrerequisites.

The absurd is reached therefore reductio ad absurdum complete, we just proved that SelfStandingEvidence is the ultimate weapon of the troll. Any resemblance with actual persons or current Wiki events is purely coincidental, no animals were hurt in the making of this rant, and no BookStops were performed.

QuodEratDemonstrandum?.

Nice strawman you built and then beat to dust. Unfortunately, I have to clean up the mess. "Self-standing" is a matter of degree, not Boolean. (I wanted to keep the title short.) I can state my definition of "types" and start using it directly on Wiki, such as showing how a compiler can determine if the operator is correct for a given type. If yours has tons of baggage, then maybe it is flawed or just not useful to most readers.

See PageAnchor: "Vetting" under BookStop. I believe that to be fair and sound. If you don't, well, then that's the way is. We'll have to let the reader judge that for themselves. If they disagree with those rules of thumb, then they can ignore my writing. --top

Truly ill-informed annoying people are easy to trip up with facts. You collect their contradictions and errors together, reword them into semi-formal logic so that things are clear, and soon you have tons of evidence against them. You then number their defective arguments, and reply with a reply number. After a while they realize they are out-gunned and go away. But it does require clarity. Debating with only fuzzy notions will not lead anywhere. --top

I think you underestimate the tenacity of truly ill-informed people. It takes intelligence and enough humility to admit fault to be tripped up by facts and contradictions. People with those qualities don't remain "truly ill-informed" for very long. So that really leaves the tenacious ill-informed - the stubborn old coots who are willing to blind themselves to their own error, thumb their noses at your 'facts', repeatedly assert that "I'm not wrong! everyone else is!" until they become borderline paranoid, conveniently misread words that are clear to everyone else, and generally apply fallacious reasoning to dismiss your arguments. The proper behavior for these people isn't to 'trip them up' or fight with them at all. Instead, one should simply ban them.

[Or ignore them...]

True. Sometimes that works. On the other hand, letting them be looks to the casual observer like tacit approval of whatever truly ill-informed advice they are preaching. Better off just banning them.

That is authoritarian censorship.

It is censorship. It doesn't need to be authoritarian.

People with authority/power will almost always end up abusing it without checks and balances. Why not just use good, well-written reasoning and evidence? Kill trolls with facts, not intimidation and locks.

Truly ill-informed people are able to conveniently ignore 'facts', and are largely immune to them.

If you mean me, you admitted (as I interpret it) that you rely heavily on BookStops rather than facts for key disagreements. That's what this topic is about. Thus, there's no "facts" to ignore. --top
I rely on BookStops rather than kowtowing to ignorance by attempting to provide SelfStandingEvidence - a concept you 'invented' so you could blame other people for not achieving it. And I speak of "truly ill-informed people" in general. Did you try that shoe on and discover it fits?
I did NOT invent it. It is generally enforced in formal debates [no, it isn't.]. "The proof is in Dr. Floks book" is not acceptable. Plus, you don't cite properly anyhow. Plus, SelfStandingEvidence helps readers because they want information now, not 2 weeks later after spending $80.
Further, my past experience with BookStops suggests that the claimers are merely too lazy to restate arguments from the book to fit the topic at hand. I don't mind laziness as long as you are honest about it instead of projecting it back on to one's debate counterpart.
People are generally rejected from formal debates unless there is good reason to believe they are well-informed. That sort of censorship avoids a lot of problems. And such people, in formal debates, regularly quote external studies and cases. Knowing those studies is part of being well-informed.
They are more specific than you guys when using such references. Usually there is a numeric metric, such as "X was reduced by Y percent according page 353 of Dr. Trollinhiemer's study in the March issue of "IT Productivity Magazine."
To whose formal debates have you been listening? More likely we get "Trollinhiemer" and possibly "IT Productivity". Page numbers don't happen often unless the guy has the magazine sitting in his lap at the time.
Written formal or semi-formal arguments usually are far more specific than you guys.
87% of most statistics are made up on the spot. Including statistics about what is 'usually' the case.
It's simpler if we all just believe YOU. Look at WikiPedia as an example.

Further, you cannot stop them for stating their opinion in the world, only on this Wiki.

Correct. Such people are free to go rage on to the world without apparent tacit approval from the wiki community.

Thus, if you want to "cleans the world of lies", it will likely backfire, and make them look like a martyr.

The goal is not to "cleanse the world of lies". The goal is to allow the other members of the community to spend their resources doing more productive things than putting out fires because they don't want to be implicitly associated with the behavior and sophistry of a community nuisance. Effectively, such people have three options: leave the community themselves (and scrub their names from it), stay in the community and expend regular efforts putting out fires, or banish the bastard who starts them. The latter isn't a choice to take lightly, but it is the best option in the long run.

Of course, way WikiWiki is going, it's getting to the point people might as well leave it rather than deal with TopMind and the like. Even the WikiStewards? have left.

People can ignore me if they want.

I've tried that, but it turns out that you are very irritating. People aren't as controlled by willpower as they'd like to believe. For example, how often would you like to ignore what appears to be an insult, but can't bring yourself to do it? No... rather than relying on willpower, a community is much better off just getting rid of the disruptive stimulus... at least once they've decided it isn't serving a useful function.

More likely, there's nothing new under the sun of late. This wiki tends to gain new activity when a new fad comes along, such as patterns, extreme, agile, etc. When the fads die down, so does that traffic. Perhaps you are blaming me for things I am not guilty of again.

Naww...it's much more fun blaming you for things you actually ARE guilty of.

Yes, its all my fault. I am bad and evil and dumb and always wrong.

Hey, am I forgiven if I also drive away the GrammarVandal?

This page originally had a better title: SelfStandingTroll?. Top, being a sensitive guy when it comes to his own feelings, decided to wage an EditWar to move it, and even mangled up other conversations by choosing something that doesn't fit into a sentence: "This is a SelfStandingEvidenceDiscussion" doesn't have remotely the same meaning as "This is a SelfStandingTroll?". Perhaps Top wouldn't mind if people edit his statements to completely change their meaning, too?

I didn't move it; I only suggested moving it because your title was insulting and vague ("troll" has no real meaning). I don't know who did the actual moving. As usual, I'm guilty until proven innocent. --top

A troll has a well known meaning, look it up. Also, "table" doesn't have any meaning, computers are binary, tables are meaningless to the machine (and that is all that matters since machines are empirical tests for the software). ThereAreNoTables, ThereAreNoTrolls?, and ThereAreNoTypes, and EverythingIsRelative --NonTopAnonymousDonor

Is there a definition for frothy rambler?

Depends if that froth has any meta ability.

I normally make an honest attempt find the kernel of goodness in any page, and in the case of SelfStandingEvidence I have labored mighty to do so. It is this : I believe that there is no chance whatsoever that anyone who is capable decrypting what it might mean is likely to take seriously what it does mean. As for the others, there are limits to what can be done to prevent transfer of disinformation-- I must rely on the firm belief that only education can defeat the folly that is the internet. Light vs dark, good vs evil,ignorance vs enlightenment--- it was ever thus. If the lights do finally go out, then perhaps the author was right after all-- human progress is only an illusion. I know this will shock many, but if SelfStandingEvidence can be taken seriously then human progress must be considered an illusion and I can only marvell that we made this far and pray that we do not suffer so much in the coming apocalypse.

MarcGrundfest

CategoryRant CategoryHumor