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 252472
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Some inaccuracies..
by Cloudy on Tue 3rd Jul 2007 02:55 UTC 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