Re: The quality of Analysis

[Alan Dove <ad52@columbia.edu>]

> On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Aaron R. Klemz wrote:
> 
> > I VEHEMENTLY (I just had to throw in some 
> > caps so I would fit in to the tone of this thread) disagree that evidence 
> > destroys analysis. 

If this is in response to my criticisms, I just want to point out that I 
never made any such argument.  Of course evidence doesn't destroy 
analysis.  Neither does it substitute for analysis.

> In general, that is definitely true.  And a debater's analysis is 
> definitely better when it is informed by the research that led to the 
> evidence (assuming the research was not from a trade, or done by a 
> coach/assistant, or bought from an evidence-hawker).

Absolutely.

<excellent analysis about evidence and Linus snipped out>

          --Alan


__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu

---

References:

• Re: The quality of Analysis
• From: Earl Croasmun <croasmun@luna.cas.usf.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Huber Debates, 10/28-29, Univ. of Vermont
• Next by Date: Re: The quality of Analysis
• Prev by thread: Re: A-Life, Mexico, and NDT
• Next by thread: Re: The quality of Analysis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page