Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2007 17:19 UTC, submitted by doro
Intel "Buried deep in a pile of slashdot comments, Matthew Dillon of DragonFly gives a detailed assessment of the Intel Core bugs. While a lot of news sites and bloggers were quick to dismiss the issue as inflated, Dillon's comments provide a much closer look at the actual issues."
Thread beginning with comment 252079
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Some inaccuracies..
by danieldk on Sun 1st Jul 2007 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some inaccuracies.."
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

As in largest contributions to the art. Ever heard of DICE? How about OpenSSH? Either of them rival Bill Joy, Eric Allman, or Marshall Kirk McKusick for the effect they've had.

An argument should stand on its own merits, not on who delivers it. Appealing to authority does not leave room for rational discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Some inaccuracies..
by Janizary on Sun 1st Jul 2007 19:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Some inaccuracies.."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Perhaps, it would probably be nice if the facts alone dictated matters, but that is not so, since not everyone is able to grasp the complexities of the subject.

If she weighs as much as a duck, then, she's made of wood, which means she's a witch, and we should burn her! or There is no such thing as a witch.

If your level of understanding is closer to the person making the first argument, it makes more sense to you, those with greater understanding may make statements which you do not instantly comprehend, that does not mean the first statement is correct. If someone has a proven track record of making logical, justified statements, they have earned a level of trust and authority in matters, while a noone from the shadows does not hold any such prestige.

Reply Parent Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If someone has a proven track record of making logical, justified statements, they have earned a level of trust and authority in matters


They have earned credibility, not authority. To borrow a quote from an author whose name I can't remember, "There is no such thing as authority in the realm of ideas."

while a noone from the shadows does not hold any such prestige.


No, but that doesn't make it intellectually-justified to dismiss an argument solely because of the source.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Some inaccuracies..
by Cloudy on Tue 3rd Jul 2007 02:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Some inaccuracies.."
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Perhaps, it would probably be nice if the facts alone dictated matters, but that is not so, since not everyone is able to grasp the complexities of the subject.

If you don't understand the subject, then you shouldn't judge between opinions on it.

If someone has a proven track record of making logical, justified statements, they have earned a level of trust and authority in matters, while a noone from the shadows does not hold any such prestige.

What you suggest is a common enough logical fallacy that it even has its own fancy Latin name.

The problem is that given an argument made by someone whose expertise you (think you) know and someone whose expertise you are unaware of, there is no way for you to judge, unless you, too, are an expert.

I've known Matt since the middle '90s, for instance, and would not judge him particularly expert on the issue of errata, as he has little experience in new system bringup. But I read his comment critically and the rebuttal also critically, giving each argument equal weight. Matt's arguments come out as less well supported.

Reply Parent Score: 2