"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m33cujlaiq.fsf at panix.com...
> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> writes:
>> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:KtOY8.65402$P%6.4406381 at news2.west.cox.net...> >
> > > Every tale they tell about Hopper is larger than the one before. In
> > > searching the net, there are all kinds of ridiculous claims about
> > > Hopper--she "invented" the Mark I computer, she "invented" Cobol, she
> > coined
> > > the phrase "computer bug", she "invented" compilers.
> > >
> > > What this shows us is that the very BEST woman "inventor" they could
come
> > up
> > > was a fraud.
> > >
> > > What does that say about the rest?
> >
> > Even if you were correct here (which you are not, as has been
demonstrated
> > in other messages), this doesn't say anything about the rest. To believe
> > that it does is a logical fallacy.
>> No, to believe that it *neccessarily* does is a logical fallacy. To
> believe that it suggests so is common sense. That's the thing about
> the real world - nothing can be proved rigorously, not really. When
> you get down to it, everything is a generalization. But that doesn't
> keep us from understanding the world pretty well with evidence and a
> moderate level of generalization.
It is debatable whether he meant it was necessary or if it merely suggests
it. Based on his previous comments, I took his post to mean that since 'the
best' woman was a 'fraud', that means that the rest are worth even less.
