On 22/12/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
never foolish to assume good faith.
Someone opens your car door when you're stopped in traffic, points a
gun at you and tells you to get out of the car. Do you assume they're
trying to steal your car, or do you assume they're in a really really
big hurry and genuinely need it?
That guy has given overt proof of his lack of
good faith. It's no
longer a question of assumptions.
"Proof" is a purely mathematical concept, there is no such thing as
proof in real life, just evidence to support a theory. It always comes
down to assumptions, some assumptions are supported by evidence, some
aren't, but they are all assumptions. In this case, the assumption of
good fatih is not supported by the evidence, so would be a foolish
assumption. The assumption of bad faith is supported by evidence and
would be a wise assumption.
"Assume good faith" is a good policy when there is little or no
evidence. Once there is evidence to the contrary, it becomes a foolish