ebrown_p wrote:Frank,
If you agree with Brandon's statement about the fair coin, then we can be done with the Mathematics of your argument.
Arguing about the what the argument is isn't any fun.
I have no problem with the fair coin...but if you read his statement...you will see that it has no impact on the probability fallacy in his original statement...nor in the logic which he applies.
The fair coin argument is truly a red herring. He might just as well have offered that 2 + 2 = 4 as an argument that his original statement...and the way he is applying it...is correct.
All I intended to say is that if an event, X, has a probability p of occurring, then failure to observe p on the first few trials does not imply that X will not occur on the next trial. Similarly, when we invaded Iraq, there was a probability, p, that we would find WMD. It was probablistic because our knowledge of the truth was incomplete. If you knew all the facts connected with tossing a coin, you could predict the outcome, but your incomplete knowledge renders the result probablistic. Should we again invade another country under similar circumstances, we might very well find hidden WMD. I most certainly did not say that the real probability was .3. That was an absolutely arbitrary number used to facilitate the discussion. You folks have now succeeded in wasting a lot of time and energy over something that is virtually self-evident.
Brandon9000 wrote:All I intended to say is that if an event, X, has a probability p of occurring, then failure to observe p on the first few trials does not imply that X will not occur on the next trial. Similarly, when we invaded Iraq, there was a probability, p, that we would find WMD. It was probablistic because our knowledge of the truth was incomplete. If you knew all the facts connected with tossing a coin, you could predict the outcome, but your incomplete knowledge renders the result probablistic. Should we again invade another country under similar circumstances, we might very well find hidden WMD. I most certainly did not say that the real probability was .3. That was an absolutely arbitrary number used to facilitate the discussion. You folks have now succeeded in wasting a lot of time and energy over something that is virtually self-evident.
Without quantifying p you can't logically claim you would very well find WMD. Assigning p a number high enough to make it likely is one thing. Arguing that the number is hypothetical but your conclusion still stands is another thing.
Lets assume p = .0005. Now your conclusion of 'very well find' makes no logical sense. In fact you probably won't find. Given the limited number of countries in the world, using .0005 you can probably invade most of them and never find it.
The problem is Brandon is that you created a hypothetical probability designed to support your preordained conclusion.
parados wrote:Let's take it out of the realm of politics.
Some people that swim in the ocean drown.
Hypothetically - lets say you have a 30% chance of drowning.
therefore if you swim in the ocean enough eventually you will drown.
Would you use the hypothetical as a reason to not go swimming?
What I am saying is that the fact that you don't drown the first time you go swimming does not imply that you won't drown the second time, and that the fact that you don't drown the first time does not imply that there wasn't a very real chance of drowning. The reasoning, "I went swimming once, and I didn't drown. Therefore, there is no danger," is false. Go ahead, make me post this a thousand times. It will change nothing.
To continue the swimming analogy
You are told that you are likely to drown because of the several things, the temperature of the water is too cold, the currents are deadly, the waves are 10' high. Now someone else that has actually been to that part of the ocean says that the 3 things above aren't true.
If you go swimming there and don't drown and find out the water is a pleasant 80 degrees, calm and no waves does that still mean the probability was 30% of drowning like the first person claimed?
We had conflicting reports about what Saddam may or may not have had. Probabilities are not made based on only the worst case scenarios. There were many reputable reports that disputed claims of Saddam having WMD.
But was the probability high enough to warrant invading? I don't see evidence it was.
I didn't see it then and I still don't see it now.
Rather a picky point to argue "still having" vs "having." In either case he would HAVE. There is very little of what he did HAVE in 1991 that was not recorded destroyed. Not nearly enough to make an invasion worth it. "Still having" was LESS LIKELY than "having" based on the evidence. He would have to have produced AFTER he was ordered not to have anything of consequence.
parados wrote:But was the probability high enough to warrant invading? I don't see evidence it was.
I didn't see it then and I still don't see it now.
Rather a picky point to argue "still having" vs "having." In either case he would HAVE. There is very little of what he did HAVE in 1991 that was not recorded destroyed. Not nearly enough to make an invasion worth it. "Still having" was LESS LIKELY than "having" based on the evidence. He would have to have produced AFTER he was ordered not to have anything of consequence.
What, in your view, would be the impact to the US of a WMD destroying New York, London, or Madrid? Let's even pick a lesser target, say Las Vegas.
Brandon9000 wrote:parados wrote:But was the probability high enough to warrant invading? I don't see evidence it was.
I didn't see it then and I still don't see it now.
Rather a picky point to argue "still having" vs "having." In either case he would HAVE. There is very little of what he did HAVE in 1991 that was not recorded destroyed. Not nearly enough to make an invasion worth it. "Still having" was LESS LIKELY than "having" based on the evidence. He would have to have produced AFTER he was ordered not to have anything of consequence.
What, in your view, would be the impact to the US of a WMD destroying New York, London, or Madrid? Let's even pick a lesser target, say Las Vegas.
Iraq didn't have nukes or the capability. Pretty obvious before the invasion. Nice scare tactic that doesn't have anything to do with what Saddam had or probably had before we invaded. Saddam didn't have the nuclear material, Saddam didn't have the capacity to refine it, Saddam didn't have the technology to make a device.
North Korea DOES have the capability and very probably the nukes and did have them in 2002. What is your view? That we need to be more concerned with LESS LIKELY probabilities?
Frank Apisa wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Frank,
If you agree with Brandon's statement about the fair coin, then we can be done with the Mathematics of your argument.
Arguing about the what the argument is isn't any fun.
I have no problem with the fair coin...but if you read his statement...you will see that it has no impact on the probability fallacy in his original statement...nor in the logic which he applies.
The fair coin argument is truly a red herring. He might just as well have offered that 2 + 2 = 4 as an argument that his original statement...and the way he is applying it...is correct.
Tossing a coin, and looking for WMD in Iraq are similar in the one sense that in both cases there is some probability of success and some of failure, as a result of incomplete knowledge of the facts. That is the only similarity I was using.
As usual, you misunderstand. The theory is that if the general category of rogue states which have WMD programs are not treated seriously, then eventually a WMD will be used, at least for blackmail. If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded, then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there. That's what it means to talk about a probability. Even one such device used in a population center could exterminate a half million people. It would be one thing if you folks quoted my position accurately and then argued with it, but you almost always quote it inaccurately.
If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded, then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there. That's what it means to talk about a probability.
parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:parados wrote:But was the probability high enough to warrant invading? I don't see evidence it was.
I didn't see it then and I still don't see it now.
Rather a picky point to argue "still having" vs "having." In either case he would HAVE. There is very little of what he did HAVE in 1991 that was not recorded destroyed. Not nearly enough to make an invasion worth it. "Still having" was LESS LIKELY than "having" based on the evidence. He would have to have produced AFTER he was ordered not to have anything of consequence.
What, in your view, would be the impact to the US of a WMD destroying New York, London, or Madrid? Let's even pick a lesser target, say Las Vegas.
Iraq didn't have nukes or the capability. Pretty obvious before the invasion. Nice scare tactic that doesn't have anything to do with what Saddam had or probably had before we invaded. Saddam didn't have the nuclear material, Saddam didn't have the capacity to refine it, Saddam didn't have the technology to make a device.
North Korea DOES have the capability and very probably the nukes and did have them in 2002. What is your view? That we need to be more concerned with LESS LIKELY probabilities?
I will answer your question if you answer mine.
First of all, to get it out of the way, we can't invade NK because they have the bomb and could kill a million people during the first hour of our invasion. It's simply too late with North Korea. We invaded Iraq to keep Hussein from achieving this level of near-invulnerability.
Now about the probabilities - Once, long ago, only the US could make nukes, and then only the US and Russia, and then handful of counrtries, but the nuclear club is growing. As technology advances in general in the world, the ability to create nukes comes within the reach of smaller and less sophiticaled entities. The same is true for biologal and chemical weapons. It's similar to the way you used to have a lot of money to buy a comparativly weak PC, but now many people can afford one that's much more powerful. As time passes, we can expect to see more and less sophisticated entities able to create WMD. Some few of them will be countries we deem very dangerous, like Iraq under Hussein.
What we are dealing with here, is a low probability of an event with immensely negative consequences. What is the appropriate level of concern for a low probability of a Hiroshima in the US? Consider a future undesrable event, X, that you might be able to stop with enough effort. For definiteness, let's choose the destruction of San Diego and half of the people living in it. This is an abstract thought experiment. If the probability of event X is .05, how much effort would it be worth to stop it? My argument would be that a 5% chance of the destruction of San Diego would be extraordinarily serious, and it would be worth even very desperate measures to stop it.
As various evil dictatorships try to develop WMD over the coming years, each will present some likelihood of a WMD use in a major city over the next, say 10 years. These probabilities will be impossible to know exactly, but we will be able to get some impression of their size. My argument would be that if some dictatorship presents a 2% chance of using a WMD in a population center in the next 10 years, it is worth even very desperate measures to stop it. We simply cannot sit by and hope for the best, or rely on ineffective measures with even a low probability of a doomsday event like this.
So then a 30% chance of the increase in atmospheric CO2 raising the sea levels and destroying NY, San Diego and several other large cities should evoke a drastic response today rather than sitting by and hoping for the best?
Sorry Brandon but your solutions are selective based on little but a fear. Germany could elect a chanceller that decides to exterminate the Jews. Vietnam could be the domino that causes all of Asia to become communist. There is a HUGE difference between having ongoing inspections and "sitting by and hoping for the best. Too bad you don't see the differences.
A lot of variables to respond to your question. Who and why are the first. It would at least have a short term economic effect. There would be a desire to get the perpetrators. We would see the same response as to 9/11. The world would pretty much be reviled by the act and support any action against those responsible. On the human side, we are pretty much seeing the effects of a million people displaced with Katrina. We saw a similar reaction to the tsunami. A strong movement to help those affected.
Let's not forget invading a country on little more than the whim of the president in order to provide deficit spending that bolsters the economy.
