----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:14 AM Subject: Re: Bush II
>> I'll fully agree with you on one point: our different opinions > >concerning >> Bush will be subject to experimental verification....so I can see your >> reluctance to spend time on speculation. >Gosh, you both sound like guys whose lives aren't on the line, who have >no kids that are serving overseas now, might not be drafted ... and who >believe that there's some kind of ghost that lives on after the body >dies. Just because we prefer solid evidence to speculation? As Gautam said so kindly, I realize that some things, such as morality, is not subject to emperical verification. But, when data are available, I prefer to rely on it. You are proud to be an athiest but appear to think that data are fairly irrelevant, that conjecture alone works just fine. As an aside, my only son has just regestered for the draft. Our church has a prayer list for members who are serving in Iraq...I know some and are friends with the parents of others. So, I'm not distance. >This ain't speculation, boys. This is reality and your "thought >experiments" play out on a real crimson stage every day. So, why is factless speculation superior to data, then. I wasn't talking about thought experiments, I was stating the obvious: we are about to find out what Bush will do. At that point, I can see why JDG sees no point in conjectures about what he might do. Let me give a parallel example. When my mother broke her leg and fell (yup the word order is correct), we were told it was a 50%-50% chance that it was either Patchet's disease, or a cancer than had spread to the bones. The first was treatable, the second would soon be fatal. We didn't speculate, but waited for the operation to find out which it was. In other words, it was quite reasonable to wait on experimental data before considering what was going to happen next. Fortunately, it was Patchet's disease, and my mom is still alive. I hope you can believe that my mother dying is actually important to me. For this very reason, I relied on data, instead of conjecture. There are times when one should get the most out of limited information and make a decison. There are other times when waiting for more data is the best thing to do. I saw John arguing for the latter, and I understood why he would argue in this manner. >I ask you who's being really conservative when peaceniks insist that >d�tente is almost always preferable while hawks scream for gore and >ivory towerians pontificate about verification and eventualities.** But, the reality is that detente is only sometime preferable. The detente with Communism during the 50s-80s required our doing nothing about tens of millions of deaths. That was a bad thing. Yet, it was necessary. What is interesting to me, but not understood, is your view that using reason and data to make decisions on war and peace is a bad thing and indicates bad faith. Why do you think that your conjectures about phenomenon are superior to a well reasoned, fact based analysis? (If you don't, then why all the insulting references concerning the use of reason?). I'll agree, international politics is indeterminate enough so that there will never be predictions that are as verifiable as, say, the predictions of QED for g-2. But, an informed decision is always better than an uninformed decision. As I said before, I really really want to be right in my opinions on this issue. Thus, people like Gautam have changed my mind on a number of occasions by presenting superior arguments. IMHO, my position now is much more nuanced than it was 10 years ago, and better fits what we see. You seem to be opposed to this technique. I'd be very curious to see why. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
