I find this an interesting take on the subject. I'd use the same line of thought to argue for the opposite position: it's a good thing if a statement could be p

I find this an interesting take on the subject. I'd use the same line of thought to argue for the opposite position: it's a good thing if a statement could be proven to be wrong! Arguments that rely on a set of empirical claims of superiority are good arguments, because they can be tested. Statements that are not refutable -- such as statements about the superiority of a subjective moral -- are bad arguments. For the record: Here's one Open Source advocate who applauds LinuxCare for saving themselves by abandoning Open Source. I guess, the current users of LinuxCare's products probably agree. Yes, I advocate for "proprietary development methodologies in areas where evidence seems to show that they are more effective". An idea is not inevitably good just because it's guided by principle. In fact, I believe most ideas that are guided by principles -- especially those that claim moral superiority of a certain principle -- seem to turned always into human tragedies.