Try to honestly answer the question: "Why is the color of the programmer's shirt not important for his productivity?"
It's hard, because it _could_ be. The only way to properly answer is to take a random sample of programmers and show that there is no statistical difference.
This doesn't say anything about weather speed is important or not, of course. But it does give an idea that statistics (or practical experience) might be involved. Just remember, random sample = good, anecdotal evidence = bad.
I don't see how this relates to the original argument. It doesn't help explain you can or can't say why something isn't true. And anyway, it wouldn't be easier to respond "why is the color of the programmer's shirt important ...?" than its negation.
I think that's kindof the point... it's easier to ask the affirmative form then the negative, ie it's easier to prove then disprove.
Anyways, this meta-discussion has gone long enough anyways. I'm having too hard a time following it. Can't we go back arc and exploratory languages, please? :)
It's hard, because it _could_ be. The only way to properly answer is to take a random sample of programmers and show that there is no statistical difference.
This doesn't say anything about weather speed is important or not, of course. But it does give an idea that statistics (or practical experience) might be involved. Just remember, random sample = good, anecdotal evidence = bad.