What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

I was right, and continue to be right. I arbitrarily selected a number for the purposes of a discussion about probabilistic events, and never said that it was an accurate number. My discussion about probability was exactly correct, and little more than a re-statement of the definition of probability. Fixing the true probability of WMD in Iraq at the moment of invasion would be a later discussion. You're too intellectually dishonest to apologize when you've mis-read someone's post.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Just as Parados says, you picked the number out of thin air. Brandon, you are promoting a flat earth theory. You would be better off saying uncle.

I never implied that it was anything other than an arbitrary number for a math discussion. Another red herring from Chrissee.

And you're also saying that this entire probability discussion is another red herring by you. If you want a discussion of probability and statistics, you should move it to the riddles or science forum. If you want a discussion of political policy (which is what this thread was originally about) then you should ditch the hypotheticals and talk about real numbers.

It's not a red herring. It has relevance to the invasion of Iraq. The conclusion that finding no WMD indicates that the invasion should not have taken place is incorrect, and merely indicates a failure to understand that the presence of WMD in Iraq was probabilistic in nature from our point of view.

Quick statistical question for you Brandon. What is the minumum number of invasions needed to give you a 95% probability of meeting your 30% figure assuming all countries you invade have the 30% probability.

parados wrote:

Quick statistical question for you Brandon. What is the minumum number of invasions needed to give you a 95% probability of meeting your 30% figure assuming all countries you invade have the 30% probability.

This appears to be a poorly posed statistical question. A well posed question would be what is the minimum number of invasions to bring the width of a 95% confidence interval to within 10% around 30%. But it's just another device by you to distract the thread from the original question.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I was right, and continue to be right. I arbitrarily selected a number for the purposes of a discussion about probabilistic events, and never said that it was an accurate number. My discussion about probability was exactly correct, and little more than a re-statement of the definition of probability. Fixing the true probability of WMD in Iraq at the moment of invasion would be a later discussion. You're too intellectually dishonest to apologize when you've mis-read someone's post.

I guess its all settled now that you have declared that you are right without discussing any of my concerns with your number.

It's not a red herring. It has relevance to the invasion of Iraq. The conclusion that finding no WMD indicates that the invasion should not have taken place is incorrect, and merely indicates a failure to understand that the presence of WMD in Iraq was probabilistic in nature from our point of view.

My question, how does our war in Iraq "defend our country?" We have now lost over 1,900 men and women of our military, and it's still costing us five billion every month. How does this "defend our country?"

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Just as Parados says, you picked the number out of thin air. Brandon, you are promoting a flat earth theory. You would be better off saying uncle.

I never implied that it was anything other than an arbitrary number for a math discussion. Another red herring from Chrissee.

And you're also saying that this entire probability discussion is another red herring by you. If you want a discussion of probability and statistics, you should move it to the riddles or science forum. If you want a discussion of political policy (which is what this thread was originally about) then you should ditch the hypotheticals and talk about real numbers.

It's not a red herring. It has relevance to the invasion of Iraq. The conclusion that finding no WMD indicates that the invasion should not have taken place is incorrect, and merely indicates a failure to understand that the presence of WMD in Iraq was probabilistic in nature from our point of view.

So present a REASONABLE probability of WMD in Iraq. Use REAL NUMBERS and REAL MATH. You seem to want to INFLATE a number and then claim we can't use it because it is only hypothetical. Drewdad is right. It is nothing but a red herring on your part. Talk real numbers or don't talk numbers at all.

The problem is there is no real number to talk about. It is all subjective based on what is presented and what is ignored. Simply looking at inspections before the invasion, the probability of WMD was LOW. All suspected sites were inspected. If someone says something exists but can't provide any evidence of it what is the probability of its existence?

Original QUESTION..

Get us back on topic by answering it Brandon..

Quote:

My question, how does our war in Iraq "defend our country?" We have now lost over 1,900 men and women of our military, and it's still costing us five billion every month. How does this "defend our country?"

How did invading Iraq defend our country? Don't use hypotheticals in your answer. :wink:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I was right, and continue to be right. I arbitrarily selected a number for the purposes of a discussion about probabilistic events, and never said that it was an accurate number. My discussion about probability was exactly correct, and little more than a re-statement of the definition of probability. Fixing the true probability of WMD in Iraq at the moment of invasion would be a later discussion. You're too intellectually dishonest to apologize when you've mis-read someone's post.

I guess its all settled now that you have declared that you are right without discussing any of my concerns with your number.

Because I never claimed .3 it to be anything other than an arbitrary number to facilitate a discussion of the nature of probability. That hypothetical number is unrelated to the point I was making. Why would I care if you're concerned with a number that was arbitrary to begin with? Either you're too stupid to understand the meaning of hypothetical, or you're deliberately trying to distract the discussion from the point.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I was right, and continue to be right. I arbitrarily selected a number for the purposes of a discussion about probabilistic events, and never said that it was an accurate number. My discussion about probability was exactly correct, and little more than a re-statement of the definition of probability. Fixing the true probability of WMD in Iraq at the moment of invasion would be a later discussion. You're too intellectually dishonest to apologize when you've mis-read someone's post.

I guess its all settled now that you have declared that you are right without discussing any of my concerns with your number.

Because I never claimed .3 it to be anything other than an arbitrary number to facilitate a discussion of the nature of probability. That hypothetical number is unrelated to the point I was making. Why would I care if you're concerned with a number that was arbitrary to begin with? Either you're too stupid to understand the meaning of hypothetical, or you're deliberately trying to distract the discussion from the point.

What's that phrase about name calling and the ability to win a discussion. You know it Brandon. You bring it up all the time. C'mon. Help me out here.

parados wrote:

Original QUESTION..

Get us back on topic by answering it Brandon..

Quote:

My question, how does our war in Iraq "defend our country?" We have now lost over 1,900 men and women of our military, and it's still costing us five billion every month. How does this "defend our country?"

How did invading Iraq defend our country? Don't use hypotheticals in your answer. :wink:

I know that you want to abandon a line or argument where you're obviously wrong, but I won't.

parados wrote:
Quick statistical question for you Brandon. What is the minumum number of invasions needed to give you a 95% probability of meeting your 30% figure assuming all countries you invade have the 30% probability.

This appears to be a poorly posed statistical question. A well posed question would be what is the minimum number of invasions to bring the width of a 95% confidence interval to within 10% around 30%. But it's just another device by you to distract the thread from the original question.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Original QUESTION..

Get us back on topic by answering it Brandon..

Quote:

My question, how does our war in Iraq "defend our country?" We have now lost over 1,900 men and women of our military, and it's still costing us five billion every month. How does this "defend our country?"

How did invading Iraq defend our country? Don't use hypotheticals in your answer. :wink:

I know that you want to abandon a line or argument where you're obviously wrong, but I won't.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:
Quick statistical question for you Brandon. What is the minumum number of invasions needed to give you a 95% probability of meeting your 30% figure assuming all countries you invade have the 30% probability.

This appears to be a poorly posed statistical question. A well posed question would be what is the minimum number of invasions to bring the width of a 95% confidence interval to within 10% around 30%. But it's just another device by you to distract the thread from the original question.

For someone that refuses to abandon an argument when you are wrong you don't seem to want to stay on the original question.... (after you demanded I go back to it.)

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I will not attempt to present a reasonable number because it is irrelevant, and I will not allow you to sidetrack this discussion to a different one where you think you have a better chance of winning, or of bogging down the discussion. My point about the nature of probabilistic events was that failure to find WMD in one roll of the dice does not imply that you won't the next time the situation arises, and doesn't imply that the invasion wasn't warranted, since the even is probabilistic.

It's not my fault that you are misunderstanding what I meant. What I meant was that when we invaded Iraq, there was some probability that they still had hidden WMD. Let's say for the sake of having a number to talk about that it was .3.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I will not attempt to present a reasonable number because it is irrelevant, and I will not allow you to sidetrack this discussion to a different one where you think you have a better chance of winning, or of bogging down the discussion. My point about the nature of probabilistic events was that failure to find WMD in one roll of the dice does not imply that you won't the next time the situation arises, and doesn't imply that the invasion wasn't warranted, since the even is probabilistic.

A reasonable number is irrelevant? Hmm.. Why is that? I didn't realize probability was about UNREASONABLE numbers. But that explains your entire argument. Reasonable numbers are irrelevant, especially when it ecomes to probability it seems.

Quote:

It's not my fault that you are misunderstanding what I meant. What I meant was that when we invaded Iraq, there was some probability that they still had hidden WMD. Let's say for the sake of having a number to talk about that it was .3.

Brandon's hypothetical numbers are relevant to Iraq and WMD the same way Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal is relevant to whether I'll find a clean spoon when I go to look in the silverware drawer.