Subject: Re: Grassy Knoll redux
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 12:08:59 -0700


Ali puts on his metaphysican's hat and makes a valid point (i hate it
when people do that):

>
> One problem with the simplest answer being the best,
> is who has simplified it. Meaning the simple answer
> may be a lie. Life can sometimes be complicated, and
> if the media simplifies it, the answers seem obvious.
>

you make a good point regarding a possible shortcoming of the
methodology.  if i could rephrase it, you're saying that a simple lie
might trump a complext truth.  our pal, Occum, was aware of this but
still placed the burden of proof on complexity when there was a
simpler alternative.  and he's right.  otherwise, i could always come
up with ever MORE complex explanations (remember ralph the invisible
pink unicore?) and before you know it, we're talking about allah and
jesus and shit.

this is what separates speculation from real analysis.  speculation
leads us to where we wanted to go in the first place (there's always a
path if you look hard enough).  analysis, on the other hand, is
skeptical.  as the epistomologists would say, analysts want to make
DAMN sure that they really do know what they think they know.


> The simplest solution to stopping Al-Qaida from
> getting WMD, was to attack and destroy people making
> them. War was the simplest solution.
>
> And if saddam had these weapons, it would have been
> so. but it was a lie.
>
> So "What you see, is what it is" can only work if
> someone is not manipulating what you see.
>

"what you see is what it is" is most definitvely NOT what i propose as
a test of truth!  in fact, i think the only thing i said substantively
was that the video wasn't much evidence of anything; it could have
been produced by anyone.  i don't know who killed him, but there are
any number of groups that would gladly publically execute an american,
especially a jew.  the proposition that he was offed by the coalition
security forces is not implausable, but requires some additional
evidence to substantiate.

it IS a lot like the WMD debate.  it was completely plasuable that
saddam was sitting on tons of nerve agent.  but, as Blix and Ritter
point out, to assert a positive, conclusive fact (like that iraq had
WMD) requires positive evidence not just plausablity and opportunity.


> Grassy Knoll. Just trying to get you drunk.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Ali
>
>

as i mentioned above, the problem with conspiricy theories is that i
can always come up with a BIGGER conspiricy that includes, and goes
beyond your theory.  i don't mean to seem pedantic or stubborn, but i
think you can be skeptical without being gullable.  starting from the
proposition that the government is lying and has much to hide is
always wise.  and i would LOVE to be able to hang a huge new scandal
on these fuckers.  but i don't want to get ahead of the facts.

now if you'll excuse me, i'm late for a meeting of the intergalactic
skepitcs association.  we meet every other saturday on neptune.

roger