Logic and the War
Dan and I have been bantering back and forth on the war on Derek's site. It's an interesting read..
Dan, after reading Demon Haunted World once again last night, I found the references you were pointing to. Show me where Sagan's rules of proof aren't valid.
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Both the US and Britain have intelligence resources that Saddam has developed Chemical and Biological weapons. Saddam has also been hell bent on developing a nuclear weapon. This has been proven by numerous defectors from the Iraqi regieme as well.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Which has been done for the past three months. Maybe you didn't hear of it, it's called the United Nations.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
This is actually quite funny, so a two year old who has never looked at a telescope knew just as much about the universe as the (now dead) Mr. Sagan?
4. Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Tried and done. I think that's when we started the inspections back eleven years ago.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
Eleven Years of Inspections
Eighteen Resolutions Calling for Disarmament
Three Presidents who have called for regieme change
Five Years of No Inspectors on the Ground after they were kicked out
6. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Which is the simpler argument?
7. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Hmm, well we'd have to get another dictator in some backwash country. You might have me on that one.
Comments
I'll answer those later when/if I have time. But you did not deal with my criticisms, which were of the common rhetorical fallacies you were using.
Your position is not without merit. But your arguments were. ;)
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | February 27, 2003 10:31 AM
BTW, I got that book for xmas, and haven't taken the time to read it yet. Perhaps I should, instead of putzing around with iMovie all night.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | February 27, 2003 10:33 AM
As I said, some of his points were valid but there were a few ("There are no authorities in science") that are just loony. C'mon Carl, there might not be "authorities" but there definitely are experts.
The explination of the creation of "deities" in society is pretty obvious. It's not his greatest book (Pale Blue Dot is much better, Contact was his best read).
Posted by: Brian | February 27, 2003 11:01 AM
The context for the Authority claim was that authority alone is not an argument. Carl couldn't say "I'm an Authority on the subject, therefore my opinion is true". He had to give evidence to support any ideas he had. Anyone must do so in Science.
It suprises me that you didn't understand that.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | February 27, 2003 12:12 PM
But then doesn't that get into an argument where EVERYTHING is questioned? Do you question everything you hear each day?
While "pure logic" is needed in decision making in science, we are talking about something a little more illogical than "Does Black Hole A fit into these parameters". We're talking about human relations, something that logic doesn't fall into so nicely sometimes.
Dammit, you spout Sagan all the time. Didn't you get the what the message/moral was in "Contact"?
Posted by: Brian | February 27, 2003 3:03 PM
Count me in please.
Posted by: whois | August 22, 2003 10:34 PM