----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"
> 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? After thinking about it overnight, I arrived at the conclusion that we have fundamentally different understandings of technique. Let me give an example. You quoted a website that stated that Bush called the Constitution "just a piece of paper." The website owner stated that he heard this from two high ranked government officials. You considered this very solid evidence. I wouldn't, but I would consider a report in the Washington Post solid evidence. My reasoning is as follows. If we generalize your statement, it would be: "reports given in websites that are attributed to unnamed but well placed sources are usually reliable." If we accept this as a general rule, then my general rule would rquire us to accept the same type of reports from conservative as well as liberal websites. Living where I do, I've listened to references to multiple conservative sources for all sorts of claims about the evil left that strain my credibility. So, I take a report within a website with a grain of salt. But, the Washington Post has a pretty good track record. It isn't perfect, to be sure. But it is good. I'll give an example of this from Watergate. They went with a single sourced report once, and were burnt because it was false. That was a hit on their credibility. Deep Throat told them that they couldn't afford to make these types of mistakes...one more and it was over. Websites do not have this type of reputation to lose. Thus, I can trust reports in the Washington Post while not trusting websites. I also, due to track records, trust the Washington Post more than the Washington Times. I know conservatives who admit that the Washington Post has good news standards. If a leak is reported there, they attribute solid weight to it. That is worth a lot to a paper who's market is high end (as opposed to the low end papers like the New York Post). I'll agree that, if you quote the Washington Post and my source is a website, say from an ex-reporter that you have not come to trust from knowing his work, then your source is better than mine. Now, some websites are exceptions (e.g. the NY Times website is a good source compared to the Washington Post paper), but I think that we can reasonably discuss this and arrive at rules of thumb for weighing sources that are not dependant on the political views that are supported by the statements at the source. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
