NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/dadsrig/3545

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3545 soc.men:23395 soc.women:23148 misc.legal:23446
Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!cunyvm!ripbc
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:16:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><[e-mail]>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Lines: 25

>>    I think you are overstating your case to say that the data do not
>>(data is plural of datum) add up to anything.  You really should say that
>>the data are not decisive.  But then decisive data are almost never avaiable.
>>The data presented are a prima facie case that discrimination exists
>
>  No it ISN'T!   Any more than the fact that blacks and women are
>  way underrepresented among workimg EE's relative to their % of
>  the population is "prima facie" evidence for discrimination
>  in this field.   There *might* be discrimination; it doesn't
>  rule it out; but it doesn't support it, either.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
    Yes it is.  Prima facie means `at first glance', not `at last glance'.
When there is a very substantial difference, then it is, at first glance,
evidence that discrimnation exists.  If you are holding a gun over
a dead body, it is, at first glance, evidence that you are the killer.
Of course, the discrimination might not be there, and you might not be
the killer, YES, BUT, at first glance it does count for something.  I
would suggest you read up on non-monotonic reasosning which the logic
operating here.

Rohit Parikh