>Jeroen said:
>>I said:
>> It is not unreasonable to me to suggest that a person who is an
>> anti-mine activist, whose paper is put up on the web by an anti-mine
>> organization, might, consciously or unconsciously, have slanted his
>> case in the Korean peninsula against land mines.
>Yet it is unthinkable that someone who puts a paper on the web in which he
>defends the use of landmines, is not (consciously or unconsciously)
biased?
I didn't say that. In fact, I described a (hypothetical) advocate for
retaining the usage of mines whom I would not find credible, and two
methods for evaluating the value of arguments (like this one) conducted
under uncertainty and incomplete knowledge - both of which tests your
citation fails, notably. I don't think the memory of anyone on the list is
so poor that they will forget that I wrote that just because you snipped
it.
>> >I doubt there are any unbiased sources in this case. Can you cite a
>> >few unbiased sources? (And no, the Pentagon is NOT an unbiased source
>> >-- in case you wanted to cite that one.)
>>
>> First, why doesn't the Pentagon count as an unbiased source?
>The Pentagon is one of the parties involved in this matter. They will only
>make statements that defend their policies, which means they cannot be
>anything else but biased. They are not a neutral source.
But, as I said earlier, they are the source most capable of making these
assessments. And your argument is circular - yes, they will only make
statements that defend their policies. This is presumably at least partly
because they think their policies are correct. They did not, after all,
choose them randomly. Thus their arguments can equally well be
characterized as explanations for their beliefs. Your argument that this
makes their arguments less valid does not seem to be supportable - you need
to supply a reason that their arguments might be deceptive, then in fact
demonstrate that their arguments are wrong. You haven't tried to do the
first, and have not, in my opinion, succeeded in the second. And, as I
pointed out earlier - and you have not disputed this point - there are no
interests within the Pentagon that push them towards choosing to use
landmines when they have no military effectiveness. Landmines are not the
B-1, or MBTs. You have, it seems to me, a very high hurdle over which to
leap. I
n order to prove your contention of crimes against humanity, you must
demonstrate that the institution that is most capable of assessing the
military balance in South Korea has done so incorrectly, and been so wrong
that no reasonable person could agree with them.
>> >BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite a few sources that support the
>> >pro-landmine views of the US.
>>
>> The nice thing about this argument, from my perspective, is that I
>> don't have to do that.
>Thank you. Your statement is sufficient proof for me that your beliefs are
>not based on facts -- otherwise you would have had no problem providing
>sources that contradict anti-landmine sources.
>
>(Isn't this wonderful? When I make a statement, I'm supposed to back it up
>by providing sources, but when Gautam disagrees with me, he doesn't have
to
>back up *his* claim by providing sources.)
It might be sufficient proof for you, but I'd be a little surprised if it's
sufficient for anyone else on the list. You made a remarkable claim - that
the United States government was guilty of crimes against humanity for
failing to sign the Treaty. To borrow a legal term, this imposes no burden
upon me to supply an affirmative defense. I need only demonstrate that
your own claims are not proven.
Furthermore, I have supplied evidence - and excellent evidence, in fact.
That evidence is the facts on the ground. The democratically elected
government of South Korea has balanced the risks and benefits of abandoning
landmine usage and decided to keep them. The military establishment
charged with aiding the South Koreans in the defense of their homes has
made a similar assessment. Thus two different groups of people - the two
groups who are, both by professional competence and access to information
_most able_ to assess the situation in Korea correctly - have decided that
the use of land mines is important to the defense of the Korean peninsula.
That is, to my mind, extraordinarily strong evidence that land mines would
be useful in the defense of South Korea.
>> >And who would those "neutral observers" be?
>>
>> Us, presumably. Well, I certainly think I am. I have no dog in this
>> fight. My life is not changed one way or the other if we use landmines
>> in Korea or not
>By that definition, I qualify as a "neutral observer" too. Yet you don't
>accept me as one, and the only reason I can find for that is that I don't
>share your (or the Pentagon's) views.
I didn't say that. Your distortion of what I write makes it rather
difficult to discuss something like this with you. Presumably the word
"us" includes you in its reach. So I _explicitly_ didn't say that. Not
all neutral observers have to agree on something.
>> >You know, people (including mr. Rossiter) are quite capable of
>> >acquiring knowledge *without* getting a degree in the subject. For
>> >example, I know my around computers and computer networks (that's what
>> >my boss pays me for!), but I don't have a Masters Degree in Computer
>> >Science. Does my not having a CS degree make me incapable of, say,
>> >analyzing and solving network problems?
>>
>> I agree. But I did not cite an educational degree as the sole way of
>> gaining these credentials. Military experience - particularly serving
>> at a high rank in someone's military - would be an experiential way of
>> gaining this knowledge, perfectly equivalent, it seems to me, to your
>> knowledge of computers. In fact, a person with military experience
>> would have _more_ credibility in my (and I think in most people's)
>> minds than someone with purely academic knowledge.
>Yet, when I showed that people with military experience (the former
>commander of the US forces in South Korea, and several retired military
>leaders) shared my views, it was dismissed with "they're only part of a
>small minority". Apparently, only officers that are part of a vast
majority
>qualify as "credible sources".
As far as I can recall, you cited one person who believed that. But I will
concede that I may have missed a post. The former commander of American
forces in South Korea is, in fact, in my opinion, so far the only credible
evidence you have produced to support your case. He is, nonetheless, only
one officer. There are scientists - even biologists - who believe in
Creationism. That doesn't give them equal credibility with the vast
majority of scientists. The consensus of a professional community is not
always right, but it is far more likely to be right than any particular
outlier. It is, in general, the best yardstick that non-specialists in a
field can use to judge the accuracy of any particular set of beliefs.
>> Two more points. The first is that it seems to me that in order to
>> prove your case, you must make some argument as to _why_ you think it
>> is that the United States military is holding on to mines with such
>> force, if they are of as limited utility as you seem to believe.
>I have already done that, but I'll repeat it. The US military is holding
on
>to their mines because of a wrongful belief that they are actually useful,
>even though several sources show that more effective weapons are
available,
>and landmines are more likely to be a hazard than a help to US and South
>Korean forces.
OK. That is your belief. It is also the belief of Rossiter, and other
people with considerably more military expertise. They might even be
right. As I posted, I agreed with that belief as little as five months
ago, although it is not currently my belief. So you have demonstrated that
reasonable people can believe that mines are not necessary to the defense
of South Korea. That doesn't mean that they're right, it just means that
the belief is reasonable. But that is a very long way from demonstrating
that the belief that mines are necessary is unreasonable, and it's a whole
other universe from demonstrating that this belief is so unreasonable as to
make holding it and acting upon it constitute crimes against humanity.
>> Some deference is also, it seems to me, owed to the judgments of the
>> men and women who are risking their lives in defence of South Korea,
>> and who also have the highest degree of expertise necessary to judge
>> whether the use of land mines would be necessary in the case of war.
>Yet when these experts say that landmines aren't necessary, they are
>dismissed as "not credible" because they are "part of a small minority".
Are you _denying_ that they are part of a small minority? If you are, then
how do you explain the independent decisions of both the South Korean and
the American military establishments? In fact, I never dismissed anyone -
save Rossiter - as not credible. Rossiter is clearly not one of those
experts to whose judgment I thought we should defer.
>> Or that you have "debunked" the beliefs of the American military by
>> citing the writings of an anti-mine activist who lacks any evidence of
>> credentials that would rate his judgment equal or superior to that of
>> his judgment equal or superior to that of people in the American and
>> South Korean militaries.
>First, I believe that mr. Rossiter's credentials are such that his
judgment
>can be considered fairly equal to that of people in the armed forces.
>Second, I have also cited sources other than mr. Rossiter that show why
>landmines should not be used in South Korea.
As far as I can tell, you haven't justified your belief in Rossiter's
credentials. He has been an active participant in the fight to ban land
mines. How does that make him qualified to judge the military balance in
South Korea? Your other sources are more telling, but they don't
demonstrate that differing beliefs are immoral.
>Jeroen
I'm curious - what do other people on the list think? My contention in
this argument has been relatively simple. The belief of the United States
and South Korea that land mines are useful to the defense of South Korea is
a reasonable one. I'm not saying that it is correct - I don't know. I
think it is, but I am not qualified to make that judgment with any degree
of certainty. I simply argue that it is reasonable. Jeroen, it seems to
me, argues that it is not. A subsidiary discussion from this main one was
on the topic of Rossiter's qualifications to assess the strategic balance
in South Korea. I argue that his c.v. does not display evidence of
military expertise sufficient to hold his judgment as superior to that of
the Pentagon and the South Korean military. Jeroen, so far as I understand
him, suggests otherwise. I will, in fact, make an offer that is, I think
unprecedented in list history :-) I've certainly never made any offer like
it. If the count runs heavily against me - say 2:1 - I will con
cede that I have lost this argument. :-)
1 vote for it being reasonable, and that Rossiter is not a better judge of
military affairs than the Pentagon :-) I assume that no one is surprised
by my vote... :-)
Gautam
