Dan wrote:
The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the
main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue.
The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate
arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those
positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have
before on this list. I
have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on
technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's
comment that
"science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves"
relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at
conclusions, and
then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use
of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of
success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me.
Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's
motivation for the invasion of Iraq? I have provided several data points
that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined
to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they
were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence. You
provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to
avoid nation building.
I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I
provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no
adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong.
Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply?
Here's the relevent post:
http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20051121/034177.html
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
