[Owasp-leaders] OWASP "Certification"
dennis.groves at owasp.org
Wed Jul 3 17:30:21 UTC 2013
On 3 Jul 2013, at 5:52, Dinis Cruz wrote:
> Dennis you are wrong with your logic. Ironically if we sold the use of
> the OWASP brand, it would actually increase its abuse, since it would
> legitimise the bad behaviour.
Dinis, with all due respect, it is you who are actually committing a
logical fallacy! It is known as the '[slippery
1) If we sell the use of the brand
2) then increased brand abuse will happen
3) therefore selling the brand must not happen
This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to
believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an
argument for such a claim.
Because of this fallacy I can easily argue a counter point such as:
"Given with our enormously large watch dog community, and our
increasingly litigious society, brand abuse would actually decrease if
we license it because corporations would not want to be sued for brand
This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the
strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of
steps between antecedents, and directly proportional to the causal
strength of the connections between adjacent steps.
***In any event this entirely misses the point. My hypothesis is: OWASP
misses numerous ways to capitalise on the community intellectual
property that we could and should be capturing to further strengthen and
support OWASP in its mission.***
[Dennis Groves](http://about.me/dennis.groves), MSc
[Email me](mailto:dennis.groves at owasp.org) or [schedule a
> "Unless someone like you...cares a whole awful lot...nothing is going
> to get better...It's not." -- The Lorax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders