The difference is roughly as follows. If A does X intentionally but it turns out that
even though A does not know it A is actually doing Y, that is doing something by
mistake. If A intends to do X but unintentionally causes Y that is doing something by
accident -or at least one way of doing something by accident.
Consider the bombing of the embassy. According to the official story this was a
mistake. The pilot
intentionally bombed the bldg that he targeted (X), a building that he thought was an
arms depot, but he is actuially bombing the Chinese Embassy (Y). Contrast this with a
case where a pilot intends to bomb
a military barracks (X) but the bomb veers off course and hits a market place (Y) The
pilot unintentionally causes the market to be bombed, and thus bombs it by accident.
Both accidents and mistakes are unintentional. The first explanations of the bombing
were that it was an accident. The target was said to be a TV
studio or an arms supply depot but the missiles somehow
or other missed, wandered off course and hit the embassy. This was totally ludicrous,
as I pointed out.
There were three bloody missiles fired from different angles. The pilot, whatever else
he was doing, was
firing at the goddam CHinese Embassy bldg. not some studio or arms depot several
blocks away.
Even the nincompoops at NATO finally figured out that their first explanation could
not work in the circumstances Hence the new story about the mistake. It was no
accident.
Given that it is a mistake, someone is responsible. THere seems precious little
concern for ascertaining
who is responsible for the mistake and making sure they are properly punished.
Accidents happen. Mistakes are made.
To put it another way. A mistake is doing one and the same thing under two
descriptions--ie bombing a building the pilot took to be an arms depot, and bombing
the Chinese Embassy. An accident is when two
different things are involved. Bombing barracks (intended), actually bombing a market
place (uinintended).
I am speaking of course of doing something by accident, not of events per se as
accidents.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Charles Brown wrote:
> >>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/11/99 04:43PM >>>
> Charles,
> 1) I believe that I have been using the term "mistake'
> not "accident" with respect to the Chinese embassy
> bombing. Certainly that is what I have meant, even if
> I have said otherwise.
>
> CB: I'll bite. What is the difference between a mistake and an accident ?
>
> ((((((((((((
>
> I have repeatedly said, that,
> mistake or accident, the bombing of the Chinese
> embassy was not justified and should be condemned,
> along with the bombing of other targets in Yugoslavia,
> which has resulted in many more innocent civilian deaths
> than did the one of the Chinese embassy, although that one
> is certainly going to lead to much more negative consequences
> for the US.
>
> CB: Agree
>
> (((((((((((((
>
> 2) I am only going to respond to your remarks about
> econometrics on pen-l because I am already overquota on
> lbo-talk and the econometrics discussion has been here.
> Properly done (according to the textbooks) an econometric
> test should be of a hypothesis derived from some economic
> theory (however bourgeois, alienated, misguided, or ideologically
> twisted). Thus, when Card and Krueger set out to look at the
> relationship between increases in the minimum wage and the
> impact on employment, they were looking at something that,
> although subject to a certain amount of randomness, nevertheless
> supposedly had a causal relationship. When they produced
> serious evidence that the expected relationship was not there,
> it created quite a stir.
>
> CB: Not to be picky, but isn't there a difference between causation and and
>statistical correlation ? Seems they would be setting out to show a statistical
>correlation that would be some empirical evidence of a causal connection. Anyway, I
>read on.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
> Everything has noise, even if governed by probability
> distributions a la quantum mechanics.
>
> CB: As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves amidst a welter of random
>events.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
> The embassy bombing
> looks pretty noisy to me, whether mistake, accident, plot by
> Serbian spy, plot by super-sneaky Clintonites too smart for
> their own good, or plot by secret cabal of ultra-militarists, or....
>
> CB: Just to be clear, what would be an example of this not being part of the noise ?
>
> If they were bombing the Chinese embassy ON PURPOSE, INTENTIONALLY, not neglegently
>or recklessly, they might use the excuse that it was an accident or mistake to
>coverup or for plausible denial. But as you say, the U.S., is culpable whether it was
>on purpose or reckless.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
> BTW, I agree with whoever it was (Peter Dorman?) who
> said that a lot more effort should be put into getting better
> data than on developing ever fancier ways of torturing the data
> that we have. One of the strengths of the Card-Krueger study
> was that they developed their own data set.
> I also agree with Peter (I think) that a serious look should
> be made at the McCloskey critique of the standard practice
> of econometrics, along with the related Leamer "let's take the
> 'con' out of econometrics" stuff.
> Finally, I would note that econometrics has been used to
> expose bogus baloney from racist ideologues. The example
> that comes to mind most sharply is the expose by Arthur
> Goldberger and Charles Manski of the fallaciousness of the
> Murray-Hernnstein _The Bell Curve_.
>
> Chas.: I'm not opposed to the use of statistics, including econometrics. But if you
>were using probability theory on this bombing, it would be a pretty good correlation,
>as some others have pointed out, no ? I'd have to think about how you set up the
>correlation, I guess.
>
> On econometrics in general, I don't have enough experience to really enter the
>discussion on this thread, however, I find credible the criticisms from those who do
>(probably including you) who say that it has in fact been abused by many , and there
>must be an ongoing struggle by progressive economists to clean it up.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 4:27 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:6684] Mistakes, randomness, accidents and econometrics
>
> >
> >
> >>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/11/99 01:48PM >>
> > BTW, for those who come up with half-baked probability
> >calculations and then declare that this could not have been
> >a mistake, I would remind you that the chances of the Three
> >Mile Island accident happening were supposedly something
> >like one-in-ten billion.
> >
> >((((((((((((((((((
> >
> >Random Barkley,
> >
> >Maybe it was a butterfly in China flapping its wings that caused this
> mistake, this accidental bombing.
> >
> >Funny how econometrics is used to find order and correlation in plottings
> of points that seem random. But when it comes to explaining events that look
> causally connected, you tend to see it as random , an accident.
> >
> >As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves through a series of
> accidents.
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
> >
