RE: Different standards of proof was Landmines

[Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:38 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Different standards of proof was Landmines

> > > > What is your opinion on the credibility of the war game 
> > > > models of the US military?
> > >
> > >Well, lets look at the data.  The record of war games vs. 
> > >actual war outcomes have been mixed.  But, the Gulf war, the last 
> > >one with significant US ground troops has shown that the tactics 
> > >were fairly successful.  So, on the whole, their claims would
> > >probably be given decent weight.
> >
> > I find this rather surprising. You always claim that reports must be
> > peer-reviewed, and you want a link to them so you can examine them
> > in detail. Yet, the contents of these wargames are not publicly
> > available (the Pentagon conveniently uses the argument "that 
> > information is classified") so the validity can not be determined, 
> > but you nevertheless seem to believe that those wargames are 
> > accurate.
> 
> Yes, because there does seem to be some experimental verification for
> their games.

That is not exactly convincing evidence. I can write a simple computer
program called "Weather Forecast" that for any given day will predict "today
in The Netherlands, it will be mostly dry weather but it will rain at some
time between 6 AM and 6 PM". Given the climate here, there will be several
days each year on which this prediction comes true. This does not, however,
constitute evidence that I have a written a reliable weather forecasting
program.


> I give greater weight to data  from a source that I've been able to
> test independently of the analysis in question compared to analysis
> quoted from sources I haven't heard of before.

Ah, well, I didn't know the Pentagon has made their war games available to
you for independent testing. Where on the web can I find your scientific
analysis of the war games you tested?


> > >And, quotes of facts are more likely to be believable than
> > >untrained projections.  For example, if you use "North Korean Army" 
> > >in a hotbot search you will find sites like
> > >
> > >http://www.iht.com/IHT/DK/00/dk090800.html
> > >
> > >which quote the US army as saying that N. Korea is running constant
> > >maneuvers and that they have moved their forces south so that  70%
> > >of N. Korea's forces are within 100 km of the border.

> > Let me apply your standards to that article. The article cites "an
> > intelligence report prepared by the U.S. military command", but it
> > does not provide a link to that report. Is that report available to 
> > the general public (preferably on-line), or has the US military 
> > command conveniently labeled the report "classified"? If that report 
> > is not available to the public, its validity is questionable at best.
> 
> But, I directly addressed that in what you snipped:
> 
> "One other thing about web sites and believability.  Sites of 
> organizations that have reputations to protect are more likely to have
> their facts straight that web sites that are simply put up by someone
> who is sure about an issue.  An example would be the right wing claims
> that Clinton murdered hundreds of people to cover up Whitewater.  If
> hundreds of people to cover up Whitewater.  If it were in the NY times
> it would be more believable than the Texas Militia web site."

I wasn't talking about the credibility of *websites*, I was talking about
the credibility of reports written by the US military command. If military
command keeps these reports classified they can not be subjected to
independent examinations, which means that the reports' validity can not be
confirmed.

I'll ask you again: why should the standards you apply to a report that
criticizes the US military not be applied to a report written by the US
military?


> > The article also cites a document titled "North Korean Threat",
> > compiled by the intelligence section of the U.S. command. Again, no 
> > link to that document was given, and again: if it's not publicly 
> > available, its credibility is virtually non-existant.
> 
> But, as I said, there is a difference.  The US military has the
> credibility they've built up over the years of making reports and
> having their reports checked against reality later.

So, you consider a report (which is not open to independent evaluation) to
be credible, just because the military has built up credibility over the
years? Not exactly a scientific approach, is it? Although that reputation
carries some weight, it does not mean that every report the US military now
writes is by definition credible.

Let's say a scientist has published 100 articles over the last 30 years.
These articles have all been determined to be very credible. Does that mean
that when this scientist writes his 101st article, the scientific community
will decide to skip the peer-review process "because this scientist has
written so many credible articles before"? I'd think not.


> No one is claiming scores, let alone thousands, of people are being
> killed and maimed by US mines.

One of the sources I cited mentions a report (IIRC, from the Army Surgeon
General or something like that), that says that over a thousand US soldiers
were killed by US mines, and a few thousand US soldiers were injured by US
mines.


> I doubt that most people who are hurt by land mines are hurt by mines
> that are designed to turn off or self destruct in 48 hours to two
> weeks and/or are used as protection for anti-tank mines.

I doubt it really makes any difference by what kind of landmine someone gets
killed. The victim is still dead, and his or her family will not mourn any
less if their loved one gets killed by an anti-tank mine rather than by an
anti-personnel mine.


Jeroen

_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website:                    http://go.to/brin-l