Basic Training
Here’s this one again. I’ve pointed it out before, but it’s a mistake that crops up all the time, so it bears repeating. This one is via the drink-soaked Trotskyist popinjays quoting Christopher Hitchens.
RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that’s how, Christopher…
CH; Well, I’m not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn’t know of any actual operational connection…which was the Iraqi Baath Party and…excuse me…and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that’s because they don’t know. They don’t say there isn’t one. They say they couldn’t find one.
There. It’s a really basic point – right up there with the distinction between proof and evidence. Saying you haven’t found something is not, repeat not, repeat not the same thing as saying that the something is not there. News flash – something can be there even if no one has found it yet. Especially if the search area is, instead of being the size of, say, your living room, the size of, say, Iraq.
Two of the other times I’ve pointed this out were: 1) a journalist interviewing a military journalist: mj said investigators have found no WMD, j said ‘You say there are no WMD,’ mj interrupted to say with suppressed fury, ‘No I didn’t say that, I said investigators hadn’t found any,’ j said ‘What’s the difference?’ !!?!! 2) a different journalist interviewing Hans Blix, who said ‘We haven’t found any WMD,’ j said ‘Can you tell us for certain that there are no WMD?’ Blix answered with exasperation, ‘No, of course we can’t.’ Journalist said ‘Why not?’ !!?!!
Really basic.
[Just to make clear – I can’t boast. Someone did a very basic ‘are you paying attention?’ test on me a few weeks ago, and I wasn’t. To put it mildly (and rude Someone did a lot of rude laughing at me as a result). Of course I didn’t know I was being tested, I thought I was just confirming that a message had been sent – but that’s the point. I guess. Anyway, I can’t boast. Not that I would anyway. I’m tremendously modest.]
This note of yours was pretty interesting. You make a quite valid point about the difference between “evidence that something exists” and “the fact that something exists” but don’t go to the obvious next step – why does Hitchens assume that something exists when there is no evidence (and why do you seem to back him up on this?) instead of taking the more logical step of saying “there is no evidence that something exists, therefore I will assume that it does not exist”
When people say that God exists when there is no evidence for his existence, you don’t type up a note saying “News flash – something can be there even if no one has found it yet. Especially if the search area is, instead of being the size of, say, your living room, the size of, say, the universe”
Looks like you are just as prone to ideological bias as the people you criticise on your fine website every day
I agree with Mark C. Hitchens was trying to weasel out of that situation instead of admitting he was wrong.
By the way have you read this essay on Hitch? http://www.nplusonemag.com/hitch.html
Here is the relavent information from the 9/11 Commission Report:
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
Not a bit of it. I’m not in the least affirming whatever it is that’s in dispute in that conversation. I haven’t read or heard the rest of it, and I’m not particularly interested. My point was strictly the very limited one that I made – translating ‘We haven’t found X’ to ‘You say there is no X’ is exactly that – a translation. I would say exactly the same thing about any X, including the deity. I’m certainly not saying that because someone has not found X, therefore we might as well believe X is there. Saying something can be there is not the same thing as assuming that it is there.
In short, I’m interested in the form of the argument, not the substance of it. (The Saddam-al Qaeda connection strikes me as quite implausible, but I know nothing about it, so don’t opine on it much.)
Agreed, OB – but in practical life we assume all the time that “there is no X” in the absence of proof that there is. The weight of Hitchens’ point here depends on how reasonable the assumption that “there might be X after all” is. I understand WMD and support for terrorism may be more reasonable assumptions than invisible low-flying pink elephants in the centre of Baghdad. But the substance – how reasonable the assumption is – is more important to the argument than the form.
However, the problem is, I think, that both the “support for terrorism” and the “WMD” angle is a red herring which apparently leads Hitchens astray as much as the anti-war movement. I don’t believe the absence of either would mean anything for the pro-war left, as their position, to me, seems to be built mostly on the greater good of ending Saddam’s dictatorship – yet they keep jumping on any indication of uncertainty. The anti-war movement is little better in this (at least I would not have supported the war even if there were WMD or terrorism connections – may nagging doubts about my position stem from elsewhere). I think Hitchens is wasting a lot of time arguing points which I suspect are largely irrelevant to his position (which doesn’t become any clearer by these arguments).
Actually the evidence for WMD is this: He once did have them. Under the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the 1st gulf war, he was required to not only get rid of WMD, but also to be able to demonstrate that he had disarmed as well. So what those claiming that there are no WMD are asking us to beleive is that he got rid of his WMD, but decided to do so in such a way as to not be able to prove that he had done so, thus violating the terms of the ceasefire. In other words through deception, he provided a pretext for invasion, without the benefit of actually having any WMD. I would have thought it would have made more sense to pretend to get rid of them and still have them, rather than pretend to still have them, but have actually got rid of them.
As an aside, the British never found so much as one arms cache in Northern Ireland. Are to conclude therefore that the IRA never had any arms?
Fianlly, despite all the “I told you so s” coming from the anti-war brigade, they did no such thing. In the run-up to the war, amongst the many argumetns against war, we did not hear “He has no WMD” because just about everyone was of the belief that he did pocess them.
I believe there is more to say about this fallacy than Ophelia’s terse comment.
You cannot prove a negative, no matter how hard you try. True. James Randi was very fond of making a thought experiment on this subject involving Santa’s reindeer. Can we prove that reindeer cannot fly? Randi suggested dropping these fine animals from the top of the Empire State Building, and observing the effects. But no matter how many fall to their deaths, we cannot prove that no reindeer can fly. All we can say for sure is that these particular reindeer could not fly, or chose not to fly.
But does this legitimise the claim of flying reindeer? Not at all. Based on what we know of reindeer aerodynamics and psychology, claiming that there are none which can fly is pretty reasonable. Those believing in flying reindeer however, can very easily prove their claim by finding one.
And then there is the pink elephant fallacy; can you spot that pink elephant behind the lamp-post? No? That’s proof it is well hidden. Can’t find W.M.D.? Proof they’re well hidden. Still can’t find them? Proof they’ve been secretly shipped to Syria.
“Can’t find W.M.D.? Proof they’re well hidden. Still can’t find them? Proof they’ve been secretly shipped to Syria.”
Yes, I beive the UN were well aware of the fact one cannot prove a negative, which was no doubt why under the terms of the ceasefire Sadaam, not only had to get rid of WMD, but crucially had to be able to demonstrate that he had got rid of them. If he decided to get rid of them in such a way that he was unable to demonstrate that he had done so, more fool him. In this instance, the burden of proof was never on the UN to prove he still had WMD, the burden was on him to prove that he had in fact disarmed. The reason given for war was NOT that he had WMD. It was that he had not cooperated with arms inspectors to establish that he had no WMD.
“And then there is the pink elephant fallacy; can you spot that pink elephant behind the lamp-post? No? That’s proof it is well hidden. Can’t find W.M.D.? Proof they’re well hidden. Still can’t find them? Proof they’ve been secretly shipped to Syria.”
Hmm. Well just to make your colourful analogy more analogous. Let us suppose the existance of pink elephants is a well known undisputed fact (If Pink elephants are meant to represent WMD, then Pink elephants must exist, given that WMD do exist). And let us suppose we do in fact see a pink elephant behind a lampost (If a lampost is meant to represent IRAQ, then we defintely know that at some point, a pink elephant was behind a lamp post). And then we do not see it. However neither do we see it ever having walked away from the lamp post. Where is it? At this point we may be a little more justified in thinking that perhaps it is hiding, given we know it WAS there, and we never saw it leave.
No, no one can prove one is not hiding weapons; one can only prove one is, by locating a hidden weapon. Hence, the inspection team having uncovered no such weapon, the need to fabricate evidence in Nigeria.
“No, no one can prove one is not hiding weapons; one can only prove one is, by locating a hidden weapon. Hence, the inspection team having uncovered no such weapon, the need to fabricate evidence in Nigeria.”
The South African government were easily able to satisfy international arms inspectors that they had got rid of nuclear weapons because they wanted to do so. Thus they cooperated fully with inspection teams.
“one can only prove one is, by locating a hidden weapon. Hence, the inspection team having uncovered no such weapon”
Using the logic above, the fact that no arms caches were ever found in Norther Ireland means they never existed.
If Sadaam had got rid of WMD, it was in his interest to demonstrate this by accounting for all his material. This he failed to do. Thus the safe conclusion to draw was he still had the material. I for one am pleased that he did not demonstrate he had disarmed. It provided the pretext needed to get rid of him.
Yes but satisfying international arms inspectors is not the same thing as proof.
Merlijn,
“but in practical life we assume all the time that “there is no X” in the absence of proof that there is.”
Yes – but it is often worth pointing out that that is what we are doing – assuming – and that we may be wrong.
It’s useful to separate the two questions, it seems to me. First of all get clear that not finding evidence of X does not equate to finding evidence that not-X. Then consider how plausible X is anyway. That’s the problem with what Mark suggests, I think. The existence of weapons anywhere – Iraq, Outer Mongolia, Stow on the Wold – is not in itself a particularly outlandish or miraculous possibility; the existence of God as that trickster is generally understood – a big, vindictive, jealous, benevolent guy in the sky – is a very outlandish and miraculous possibility. Apply Hume on miracles.
Well considering the amount of money, time and effort spent on searching for WMDs, I think it’s a very outlandish and miraculous possibility that there are WMDs in Iraq. Therefore, it is a fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq.
I’m using this definition of fact: “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.”
Are you using a different definition of fact, OB?
That’s a bit of a non sequitur, I think.
There just is a genuine epistemic problem here – as inspectors and knowledgeable journalists tried to explain. Iraq is a biggish place – bigger than a breadbox – and some WMDs are small.
And again – not finding something is not ‘confirmation’ – so perversity doesn’t come into it.
“Well considering the amount of money, time and effort spent on searching for WMDs, I think it’s a very outlandish and miraculous possibility that there are WMDs in Iraq. Therefore, it is a fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. “
The have been billions of $$ spent on searching for a cure for AIDS. No cure has been found. Therefore no cure exists!!!
Chris – come on. For one thing, I’ve already said more than once that saying ‘X has not been found’ is not the same thing as saying ‘X does not exist.’ For another thing, I’ve also already said that that question is separate from the question of what other grounds there are for thinking X does or does not exist.
Chris M–
You write, “If Sadaam had got rid of WMD, it was in his interest to demonstrate this by accounting for all his material.” It is not necessarily true that Saddam would have felt it was in his interest to be seen as having no WMD’s. He may have felt it would adversely affect his public image in Iraq and in the Arab world in general. As long as he could present an appearance of thumbing his nose at the UN without suffering any personal damage, it would be reasonable to finesse attempts to settle the matter definitively.
‘Using the logic above, the fact that no arms caches were ever found in Norther Ireland means they never existed’.
That is a travesty of my argument, and I think you know it.
But back to the point, namely, absence of evidence, since I think there is quite a lot to be said about it: if, for instance, you have sampled 5% of Iraq, and found no evidence of WMD, what can you conclude?
On the face of it, not much. Only that those specific 5% did not contain detectable weapons. Now if you know something about weapon distribution within a country, you can get a better estimate of the probability of WMD existing in Iraq. Are they likely to be all clumped in one spot, or distributed evenly over the territory? If the former, tough luck. If the latter, you can start estimating the likelihood of their existence.
I’d also like to pick out one more things to illustrate the pink elephant fallacy. This is from Peter Bergen’s review of ‘The Power of Nightmares’ linked in the news section of B&W:
‘Curtis explains that the CIA found Rumsfeld’s view of the Soviet military buildup to be a “fiction”; but that did not stop Rumsfeld from establishing a commission of inquiry into the putative buildup that was known as Team B and was run, in part, by Wolfowitz. In one of the strongest sections of the documentary, Curtis explains:
Team B made an assumption that the Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated they were undetectable. For example, they could find no evidence that the Soviet submarine fleet had an acoustic defense system. What this meant, Team B said, was that the Soviets had actually invented a new non-acoustic system, which was impossible to detect. And this meant that the whole of the American submarine fleet was at risk from an invisible threat that was there, even though there was no evidence for it’.
This is basic stuff – it goes back to Hume, for one. The fact that you haven’t found something yet simply cannot be taken to mean that you never will – you just don’t know that.
wmr
“It is not necessarily true that Saddam would have felt it was in his interest to be seen as having no WMD’s. “
Actually that point had occured to me, and you are correct. However, that was a trade-off he decided to make. If he wanted to be seen as the big strong man thumbing his nose at the UN, and give the impression to all that he did in fact pocess WMD, then it can hardly be seen as unfair that he is treated as having WMD, and action taken accordingly.
“Team B made an assumption that the Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated they were undetectable. …”
All very interesting I am sure, but we were actually discussing WMD in Iraq, not Soviet Submarines. Analogies are tools for illustration, not argument. We are not talking about pink elephants, or secret subs which may or may not have existed. We are talking about WMD which were KNOWN to have exsisted at some point in Iraq, and whose destruction was never documented.
“Billions of $$ spent on searching for a cure for AIDS”
Wrong, billions of dollars have been spent on inventing or synthesizing a cure for AIDS. They are not literally searching for a cure. They were literally searching for WMD.
“Wrong, billions of dollars have been spent on inventing or synthesizing a cure for AIDS. They are not literally searching for a cure. They were literally searching for WMD.”
OK, bad analogy ;-). How about SETI then? 10s if not 100s of millions have been spent on SETI, not to mention the spare CPU cycles of millions of PCs. So far no ET has been found. The problem is space is very, very big. (Bigger even than Iraq).
One cannot just point to a very large amount of money having been spent on searching for something, and conclude from the fact that it has still not been found that therefore it does not exist. Especially if one has no benchmark as to how much such a search should cost.
“Well considering the amount of money, time and effort spent on searching for WMDs, I think it’s a very outlandish and miraculous possibility that there are WMDs in Iraq. Therefore, it is a fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. “
How much money, time and effort HAS been spent on the search, and how much money, time and effort SHOULD be spent on such a search before we may reasonably expect to find something? Without knowing the answers to these two questions it is even more meaningless to comment on the amount of resources spent on the search and conclude there is nothing to find.
ChrisM–
On the contrary, I would argue that since it was rational for him to pretend that he had WMD’S, it was all the more important that we have strong evidence for his possession before we took the steps we did – particularly in light of what we already knew about N Korea’s atomic program. IIRC the UN inspectors were still in Iraq with Saddam’s cooperation when Bush forced them to leave so that the invasion could procede.
“it was all the more important that we have strong evidence for his possession before we took the steps we did”
We did have strong evidence. We knew he once pocessed them, and we had no evidence that they had been got rid of.
“particularly in light of what we already knew about N Korea’s atomic program”
N Korea is an example in how NOT to deal with rogue states on the verge of aquiring WMD. Becuase NK now pocesses WMD, the options are limited and we have to pussyfoot around. It would have been far better to have dealt with things there before they had aquired WMD.
“IIRC the UN inspectors were still in Iraq with Saddam’s cooperation when Bush forced them to leave so that the invasion could procede.”
I agree it was fairly clear that the US always intended to invade Iraq, no matter what Sadaam did (and a good thing too). Still, he certainly made it easier for the US to find a pretext, thankfully. IIRC, the inspctors said he was NOT cooperating fully. Furthermore, I think it would have been a tragedy for the Iraqis if the invasion had NOT gone ahead.
“As an aside, the British never found so much as one arms cache in Northern Ireland. Are to conclude therefore that the IRA never had any arms?”
Utter bollocks, and I suspect that you know it. Nothing better than using a fictional analogy! They found arms caches all the time in NI, the IRA was utterly riddled with infiltrators by the end. Here’s one example of an arms cache find recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/northern_ireland/2878461.stm
“Nothing better than using a fictional analogy!”
I am sure there are better things than using fictional analogies. Using non-fictional analogies, winning the lottery, an end to disease to name but three things better than using fictional analogies.
Still, I stand corrected on the matter of whether any arms caches were ever found in NI. The article you sent a link to does indeed show that in March 2003 (35 years after the IRA was outlawed), an arms cache was found in NI.
ChrisM–
My point about N Korea was to contrast not the policy but the state of our knowledge of the two counties’ nuclear programs.
WMD does include chemical and biological weapons, but the issue in the run-up to the war was nuclear weapons. I seriously doubt that Bush could have gotten his war based on anything less than the specter of a mushroom cloud hanging over some city in the US.
Is there any evidence that Saddam ever possessed nukes? I don’t know of any but if you do, please point it out to me. In the absence of such evidence, I can only say that if you consider the lack of evidence that Saddam got rid of his mustard gas and anthrax as a strong enough pretext for Bush’s invasion, then I am, quite simply, shocked and awed by your irrationality.
ChrisM, give it up, I knew you’d make a silly gambit like that, try this, two arms caches in the ’80s:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/236898.stm
Or look for John Boyle, killed at an arms cache stakeout here:
http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap11.htm
ChrisM: “the British never found so much as one arms cache in Northern Ireland.”
ChrisM: “Still, I stand corrected on the matter of whether any arms caches were ever found in NI. The article you sent a link to does indeed show that in March 2003 (35 years after the IRA was outlawed), an arms cache was found in NI.”
Thus disproving your claim. Just to emphasise the point:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch78.htm
“Tuesday 11 July 1978
John Boyle (16), a Catholic teenager, was shot dead by undercover members of the British Army near an Irish Republican Army (IRA) arms dump in Dunloy, County Antrim.”
That’s 1978, and further searches for ‘arms’, ‘cache’, ‘IRA, ‘northern ireland’ and other quite obvious search terms will find many more examples, might I suggest looking at:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/
To get you started:
“Saturday 23 February 1985
Three members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were shot dead by undercover British soldiers in the outskirts of Strabane, County Tyrone. The IRA men were believed to be returning weapons to an arms dump when they were killed.”
“The shooting of…Patrick Duffy, in Derry in November of [1978]…in an unoccupied house in Derry that contained an arms cache…”
“I can only say that if you consider the lack of evidence that Saddam got rid of his mustard gas and anthrax as a strong enough pretext for Bush’s invasion, then I am, quite simply, shocked and awed by your irrationality.”
Irrationality has nothing to do with whether one thinks this is a strong enough pretext for war or not. That much is a matter of opinion. One can be irrational if one does not reach logical conculsions from premises. Just as one can not be said to be irrational if one favours higher or lower taxes, or other matters of policy. (BTW. It was the Iraq nuclear program rather than nuclear weapons which the invasion intended to destroy).
“My point about N Korea was to contrast not the policy but the state of our knowledge of the two counties’ nuclear programs.”
Likewise, you are not being irrational if you are suggesting that attacking a country which already has nuclear weapons, as well as a psychopath for a leader, is preferable to attacking a country with only the latter. You are certainly implying a policy which I would consider silly and dangerous in the extreme though. I am shocked and awed at your irresponsibility (although not your irrationality).
“ChrisM, give it up, I knew you’d make a silly gambit like that”
Yes, you have corrected me again, and shown that an arms cache was found 10 years after the IRA were outlawed in a country far smaller than Iraq, and in one far closer and easier to find such things.
“Thus disproving your claim. Just to emphasise the point:”
You have indeed disproved the claim that no arms were ever found in NI. I presume that is the claim you are referring to rather than the likelyhood of there being WMD in Iraq which you have not disproved.
“Yes, you have corrected me again, and shown that an arms cache was found 10 years after the IRA were outlawed in a country far smaller than Iraq, and in one far closer and easier to find such things.”
Jesus man, you just won’t admit defeat! They found arms caches all the friggin time, the only references I can find on the internet are when they are related to killings or other interesting events that warrant talking about and storing online 30yrs later. When does your original analogy fall down? First they never found any arms caches, so I show you one, then you go on about them only finding one arms cache 35yrs after the start of the Troubles, so I show you a load of arms cache findings in the ’70s and ’80s, now you say that they didn’t find them until 10yrs into the conflict – do I have to find a reference to discovering an arms cache in 1968 so you’ll quit with the sodding analogy?!
How about 1970, a year after the official/provisional split?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/2/newsid_2492000/2492035.stm
“Jesus man, you just won’t admit defeat! “
Read what I said. I quite clearly did admit that arms caches were found in NI.
“When does your original analogy fall down? First they never found any arms caches, so I show you one…..
..quit with the sodding analogy?!”
I don’t argue by analogy, I illustrate with. So by rendering my analogy mearningless (which I accept you have), you have done zip about addressing the likelyhood of WMD in Iraq. The debate was about WMD in Iraq. In the sidetrack of arms caches in NI, you have indeed shown me to be in error. You have merely shown my analogy to be faulty. As bad as pink elephant analogies.
So bollocks to the analogy, lets deal with the issue directly. It was known that WMD DID exist in Iraq. Therefore the only ways they can no longer exist in Iraq is if they were destroyed, or they were taken out of Iraq. Therefore the burden of proof is on those saying there are no WMD to show that either they were destroyed, or they were removed from Iraq. (In the world as we know it, things afterall do not just spontaneously disappear). I am not sure that any analogy should even be required to grasp this very simple point indeed.
“So by rendering my analogy mearningless (which I accept you have), you have done zip about addressing the likelyhood of WMD in Iraq”
Yep, and by suggesting the analogy you did nothing to address it either. And that was all I wanted to show.
“Yep, and by suggesting the analogy you did nothing to address it either. “
Not using the analogy no. However I made several other points regarding the likelyhood of WMD in Iraq, which in no way relied on analogy.
“And that was all I wanted to show.”
You may consider that much shown.
ChrisM–
(BTW. It was the Iraq nuclear program rather than nuclear weapons which the invasion intended to destroy).
But in an earlier comment, you said “We knew he once pocessed them[WMD], and we had no evidence that they had been got rid of.” Unlike the president – and you, apparently – I do not believe that there is no difference between a nuclear program and nuclear weapons. In any event, despite Saddam’s lack of complete cooperation – which IIRC amounted to not being able to provide sufficient paper trails to satisfy the UN requirements – the inspectors found that his nuclear program was a figment of Chalabi’s imagination. I continue to believe that it was irrational to gamble the lives of our troops and our potential to respond militarily to true threats, just to ensure that Saddam had actually got rid of all his chemical and biological weapons.
You are certainly implying a policy….
I am implying nothing about policy; you may draw what conclusions you like from my statements, but my only intention was to contrast the shoddy “information” Bush used to justify the invasion with the much more substantial information about NK’s decade old nuclear program. The only policy question I have is why we paid so much more attention to Iraq when NK was and remains a clearly more dangerous situation. If you consider this to be an irresponsible question, then my opinion of your rationality, or lack of it, is unchanged.
Remind me, who exactly is making the invalid deduction:
A. Inspectors didn’t find WMD in Iraq.
therefore
Z. There were no WMD in Iraq.
No-one’s claiming that this conclusion deductively follows from the premise alone. Of course, it _would_ follow if we had the suppressed premise:
B. If there were WMD in Iraq, inspectors would have found them.
Are some people assuming that to be so obviously true that it doesn’t even need to be stated? Not just likely, but simply flat out true? It seems rather questionable, to say the least.
In fact, most people aren’t making a deductive argument at all — they’re making an inductive argument:
pr(-W|NWF) pr(NWF|-W) pr(-W)
——— = ——— * —–
pr( W|NWF) pr(NWF| W) pr( W)
where W=”There were WMD” and NWF=”No WMD were found”. Clearly pr(NWF|-W)=1 (discounting the possibility of fake evidence being planted by ‘bad apples’ in the inspection team).
Thus if you already thought it was pretty unlikely that there were WMD anyway, or if you think that it’s pretty unlikely that the inspectors would have missed existing WMD, then in the light of the evidence it might be rational to conclude that the WMD simply didn’t exist.
You can reasonably disagree about the factual assumptions that are inserted into the above argument — as evidently you do. What’s unreasonable is to berate people for making a clearly invalid argument when they’re not.
Nice bit of thread synergy there sp.
sp–
Are you talking to me? If so, please point where I said there were no WMDs.
“But in an earlier comment, you said “We knew he once pocessed them[WMD], and we had no evidence that they had been got rid of.”
Unlike the president – and you, apparently – I do not believe that there is no difference between a nuclear program and nuclear weapons.”
No contradiction there. I can beleive that he poscessed WMD, and also beleive that the pretext for war was a nuclear weapons program, without needing to beleive they are the same thing.
“The only policy question I have is why we paid so much more attention to Iraq when NK was and remains a clearly more dangerous situation. “
The options are clearly more limited in the case of NK as they already pocess nuclear weapons. What exactly do you mean by “attention”?
“If you consider this to be an irresponsible question, then my opinion of your rationality, or lack of it, is unchanged.”
Well it all depends on what you mean by paying more “attention” to NK. A bit of a vague word in this context. If you mean it to be a synonym for action then options for action are limited in NK. If you don’t mean it as a synonmy for action then how do you know how much attention is being paid to NK? Are you saying that if one of the two contries was going to be attacked, NK would have been the better choice. It is hard to form an opinion on your rationality because you like vagueness and woolly statements.
Is there an academic discipline called conspiracy theory?
If not, there probably should be.
Take a set of publically accepted facts F, and proposition P. What is the smallest conspiracy C required to prevent P from becoming publically known?
Is C within the historically known range of conspiracies?
In this particular case, F is the set of interviews with saddam’s officials. If 30% of those were interviewed, and 50% remained loyal to him, what’s the largest number of people that could have been involved in a WMD program while still having a 10% chance of remaining undetected?
soru
ChrisM–
Fine, have it your way.
(BTW. It was the Iraq nuclear program rather than nuclear weapons which the invasion intended to destroy).
FALSE. Here is an excerpt from Diane Sawyer’s interview with W, 16 Dec 2003:
DS: When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there’s no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn’t have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can’t confirm this, they can’t corroborate.
[snip]
DS: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
GWB: So what’s the difference?
I included that last bit in case you missed the allusion in my earlier comment.
As to what “attention” might mean “in this context”: everything I’ve said has been in the context of evaluating information and evidence. In that context, I used “attention” in the sense the faculty or power of mental concentration.
It may not really advance us very far if you mean ‘make us safer’; if you mean ‘keep us from making the same stupid mistake in the future’ then it may advance us quite a bit.
Clear enough for you?