Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
An F Secure Safe follow up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 567312" data-attributes="member: 7463"><p>My issue (among many others) with the testing sites is that they are giving some products the "100%" score. Obviously by this they mean that it stopped all of the samples used in the test- but so many will infer that this actually means that these products will detect 100% of ALL malware. </p><p></p><p>Those that are familiar with Symbolic Logic know what these Pros sites are doing- it's the old "argument from authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) fallacy- they represent things that are Likely to be true and hope the reader will infer that the findings must be Necessarily true. In other words, they hope the reader will conclude as they are Professionals what they present must be the Word of God.</p><p></p><p>But continuing my post-"Extra Spicy, Please" chicken Vindaloo rant (should have know better requesting that from a restaurant named Shiva's Revenge), one can also see them opposite of this on sites like Wilders where private testing is suppressed. This is known as a a False Appeal to Authority (Courtier's Reply) where it is assumed that any argument made by someone who does not post credentials must be inherently invalid- but this misapplies the Argument from Authority fallacy as the lack of an official and relevant qualification doesn't automatically make the argument invalid.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I'd rather have the Pro sites give a Good-Better-Best result and have them go on their way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 567312, member: 7463"] My issue (among many others) with the testing sites is that they are giving some products the "100%" score. Obviously by this they mean that it stopped all of the samples used in the test- but so many will infer that this actually means that these products will detect 100% of ALL malware. Those that are familiar with Symbolic Logic know what these Pros sites are doing- it's the old "argument from authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) fallacy- they represent things that are Likely to be true and hope the reader will infer that the findings must be Necessarily true. In other words, they hope the reader will conclude as they are Professionals what they present must be the Word of God. But continuing my post-"Extra Spicy, Please" chicken Vindaloo rant (should have know better requesting that from a restaurant named Shiva's Revenge), one can also see them opposite of this on sites like Wilders where private testing is suppressed. This is known as a a False Appeal to Authority (Courtier's Reply) where it is assumed that any argument made by someone who does not post credentials must be inherently invalid- but this misapplies the Argument from Authority fallacy as the lack of an official and relevant qualification doesn't automatically make the argument invalid. Anyway, I'd rather have the Pro sites give a Good-Better-Best result and have them go on their way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top