From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 13:46:29 MDT
On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 02:42 pm, Smigrodzki, Rafal wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail@HarveyNewstrom.com] wrote:
>
> What is the point of insisting that we can never be 100% sure of
> anything? Let's concede that point for the sake of argument. Now what?
>
> ### Now you can relax. While still doing your rational and logical best
> to reach your goals, you realize that there is no pressure to be
> absolutely sure, there is no final triumph, but then there is no
> absolute failure. You embrace PCR, you still check and verify, and just
> as clearly see what's wrong, but then you also know even your own goals
> and methods could be off the point.
Great! So this proposed course of action is the same as those the
course of action used by the pro-logic faction: embrace PCR, check and
verify, clearly see what's wrong, question your own goals and methods,
etc.
So now that we're all agreed, we don't have to go through this whole
argument again. There's no point in debating whether anything is 100%
provable, or whether logic and science are valid methods or not. The
proposed course of action for the future is the same either way.
That is what I wanted to know. If the proposed course of action is the
same either way, this whole debate becomes moot. We continue on as we
always have, do our best, and try to get it right if we can. There
really is no major flaw in logic or science, or major call for us to
change our ways to something different instead.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST