[blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Steve Willner:

>Nicely put, Richard.  Your failure to understand Herman's
>point doesn't mean he is wrong.  (Nor does it mean he is
>right, of course.)

Richard Hills:

I do understand that on one occasion Herman attempted to
score a point with the classical Euclidean argument of
"reductio ad absurdum" (proving the truth of a hypothesis
by assuming that the opposite hypothesis is true, then
demonstrating that the opposite hypothesis has an absurd
consequence).

G. H. Hardy (1877-1947):

"Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one
of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer
gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the
sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician
offers the game."

WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998:

"The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that
where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to
be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden
were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not
so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define
correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws
is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an
infraction of law if information deriving from it is used
in the auction or play."

Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:

>>This sentence is often quoted. Yet is proves nothing.
>>Every statement that is not in the laws has an opposite.
>>If it is true that a statement which is not in the laws
>>is illegal, then its opposite, also not in the laws, is
>>also illegal.
>>
>>"There is nothing in the laws that says that to hide
>>your cards from opponents is allowed, therefore it must
>>be illegal. Please show me your cards!"

Cicero (106-43 BCE):

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said
it."

Richard Hills:

Herman's attempted "reductio ad absurdum" argument is
itself absurd, degenerating into the "straw man" logical
fallacy.

It is true that a WBF LC minute which said, "any action
not specifically authorised in the Lawbook is an
infraction", would be absurd.  But that "straw man" is
not the WBF LC actually said.  Rather, the WBF LC said:

"may be deemed an infraction **if information deriving
from it is used** in the auction or play."


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm