----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Acts of War


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Acts of War
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 9:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: Acts of War
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 6:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Acts of War
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 24, 2004, at 5:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Kerry didn't have enough principle to clearly vote against
*or*
> > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> war. That was one of the things Duh-bya harped on:
"Flip-flop!
> > > > >> Flip-flop!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Gulf War I, not Gulf War II was being referenced.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, *that* "that" war.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, since that was the war in which Iraq took territory.
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > >
> > > >I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to
pull
> > the
> > > >West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict.
If
> > it was
> > > >to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a
> > possibility
> > > >that cannot be discounted!
> > >
> > > Nuts?
> > >
> > > If your man, John Kerry, had been President, the US wouldn't
have
> > even
> > > attempted to stop him.
> > >
> > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > In another post you asked:
> > >
> > > >Precisely what part of that, Dan, is not conjecture? Or do you
> > believe
> > > >"assumption" to be different from "conjecture" in some
fundamental
> > way?
> > >
> > > Pure conjecture is totally fabricated.  Reasonable assumptions,
on
> > the
> > > other hand, often involve the use of logic, data, and reason.
For
> > example,
> > > if someone said they were opposed to a war and, when giving the
> > chance to
> > > vote for or against the war, voted against, one it is reasonable
to
> > assume
> > > that person's actions and words reflecting their belief that the
war
> > was a
> > > mistake.  Given the "lessons of Viet Nam" that were assumed at
the
> > time,
> > > given Kerry's position on earlier wars, it seems reasonsble to
> > assume that
> > > Kerry was being intellectually honest in his opposition to the
Gulf
> > War.
> > > It's always possible that President Kerry would have a different
> > view than
> > > Senator Kerry, but it's not pure conjecture to assume that a
> > person's
> > > word's and actions reflect their thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm more or less in the impure conjecture camp on this question.
> >
> > What one does as a Senator or Congressperson is not identical or
even
> > nearly the same as what one does as President. For one thing the
sets
> > of priorities are differing (Frex: who are your constituents?),
and
> > for another the set of informations you are being fed are often
*very*
> > different.
> > Regardless of the amounts of fabrication involved, this kind of
> > conjecture is still pure fiction and that should never be
forgotten.
>
> So, there is no reason to study history, right?

Plenty of reasons to study history that do not include suppositions
about what someone would do if their lives were completely different.
If their lives were completely different then it follows that
comnpletely different decisions are not out of the question.

> What happened happened.
> Everything else is fiction.

When considering the past, that is true.


>And there is no sense voting for any
> candidate, because what he did and said has nothing to do with what
he will
> do?

That is not what I was saying. A persons record is all one has to go
on when voting, but making up stories about what might have been *is*
fiction (and is the basis for a large set of fiction and science
fiction.)
The predictive powers of such projection (and I do use that in the
sense that people project their personal bias) is not reliable in any
usefull way.


>  I think that a study of history indicates correlations that can be
> used to gain understanding.  For example,  For example, voting
records and
> speeches as Senators can be correlated with actions as a president.

Sure, but such a projection has not always proved reliable when it
came to Supreme Court Justices. *That* has to be added into the mix
too.


> It's
> not perfect, where you sit does effect where you stand.

What is unsaid in your statement is that nothing will ever move you
from the spot your past has put you. That is simply not true.

What is also a problem is when there are mitigating reasons that a
person makes a decision. A further decision may not appear to be
consistent with a previous decision unless mitigating factors are also
considered, so what you are saying when you make such a prediction is
that you have considered every possible factor *and* that you know
every possible factor. If not, your predictive powers are weakened
substantially.


>Circumstances can
> also change.  But, even a less than perfect correlation is useful in
> gauging understandings.

Even when it is wrong?
And how do you falsify such hypothesis?

Here is an example: How many Federal executions have occured under
Bush's watch? Is it even 1% of any year of his Texas watch? But what
would his Texas execution record lead one to expect concerning his
Presidential record in regard to executing prisoners?
(Unfair question really, since the federal situation is radically
different, but you see the point I'm trying to make about
predictability.)


>   But, if one wishes to address the question of
> whether Hussein was nuts to take Kuwait needs to consider whether
the US
> coming in to remove him was a high, low or medium probability.
>
> In short, all maybes are not created equal.
>

Nor are all predictions.<G>

xponent
I Am Not Karnak Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to