Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
Anyone still interested in the actual topic?

---

Dalaena, what you are missing, I think, is that this is not just a personal argument between me and Aristotle about who said what and when. This argument is a major part of an important national debate. One widely held position, advocated in this thread by Aristotle, is that citizens, lacking expertise, should defer to the administration’s handling of Iraq and not attempt to second-guess it particularly because it is a matter of war. A competing position, which I advocate, is that we citizens must constantly monitor and judge the actions of our government even in matters of war. A person’s answer to the question: “Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?” depends entirely upon the person’s willingness to defer to the administration.

Ah, yes. I think I must have missed that in the past few posts about freedom of speech and the stifling thereof.

Quote:

---

This argument is a major part of an important national debate. One widely held position, advocated in this thread by Aristotle, is that citizens, lacking expertise, should defer to the administration’s handling of Iraq and not attempt to second-guess it particularly because it is a matter of war. A competing position, which I advocate, is that we citizens must constantly monitor and judge the actions of our government even in matters of war. A person’s answer to the question: “Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?” depends entirely upon the person’s willingness to defer to the administration.

---

I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way because I see the logic behind both sides of the argument, though some may just assume I don't care about the issue in general.

I do think that it's important that there are always people who do question the government, especially since it's supposed to be a government of the people and by the people. Most government bodies (throughout history) often start impinging on the rights of people as they grow bloated with power, and war is a good time for the government to start grabbing power for itself, using the war and the "safety of the populace" as an excuse to do so.

At the same time, I also believe that too many cooks spoil the broth. There ARE times when having people without sufficient knowledge of the situation adding their two cents into the mix can harm and/or hamper the formulation of a certain course of action. (I'm not saying that this is the case in this particular scenario.) People are able to get rabid about things they don't have any true experience with and be forceful in opinions in which they have no true understanding of how things work. This really ends up hurting things worse because then the people who do have the knowledge to formulate a solution are bogged down in all these strong opinions.

If I thought I had a solution for the Iraqi situation, I would gladly post it and stand behind it in a greater forum that our little gaming boards. I don't think that having the opinion of "I don't know what they're doing wrong, but they're definitely doing something wrong!" is very helpful in this type of situation, and unfortunately, I actually think that that's what a lot of people who ARE in charge are doing. Being negative is a whole lot easier than being constructive, in my opinion, and the negativity, unfortunately, is all I seem to be hearing from the nay-sayers in the media nowadays. I really don't see a problem with questioning the actions of those in charge, but I also don't believe in adding my voice to people who don't have a solution for the "problem" that they claim is there and creating a quagmire for those who MIGHT have a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
Ah, yes. I think I must have missed that in the past few posts about freedom of speech and the stifling thereof.

---

Freedom of speech is an essential aspect of this debate. Freedom of speech is not just a civil liberty like our protections against the government interfering in our private affairs or conducting warrantless searches. Freedom of speech is much more: it is an essential mechanism in the governance of our country. The notion, of course, is that ideas (including especially governmental decisions) should compete in the marketplace of ideas, much like businesses competing in the economic marketplace. The perhaps excessively idealistic belief is that good ideas will thrive while bad ideas will be exposed as such and perish.

If we choose to defer to the administration, and not form our own opinions, then we are choosing not to subject the administration’s decisions to testing in the marketplace of ideas. I believe that all matters of national importance must be subjected to this test. In fact, I believe that there is nothing more essential in a democracy.

There are certainly flaws with this approach. I would be the last to deny that bad ideas may thrive and become popular. However, I believe that the old saw about the jury system is equally true of freedom of speech: It’s the worst possible system except for everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Damieux
I never suggested that it suffices to choose the experts that you “like” most. Far too many people do that. What you must do is to choose the experts that you find most credible. This means the experts that you believe most likely to be correct regardless of whether you “like” them or not.

---

When unqualified people who are not sufficiently knowledgeable or trained in an extremely complicated technical issue resort to nothing more than weighing the credibility of experts, that is effectively the same as just picking the experts you like most. Think about it: If you don't understand the subject matter, how can a comparison of experts result in anything else?

Furthermore, there is a tremendous difference between the following:

1) Judging between experts for yourself and making personal conclusions.

2) Judging between experts and then sharing your own interpretations publicly as if YOU are now an expert as well.

If one does not understand the subject matter, one cannot make an informed decision about the credibility of the experts. Thus, it just boils down to who one likes most or who has the best speaking or writing skills.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Damieux
It would be absolutely relevant if the person were called upon to make a decision that depended upon those competing theories of physics. Every day judges who have no technical training or expertise whatsoever are called upon to make legal decisions that turn upon highly complex technical matters. They make these decisions by reviewing the competing opinions of experts who do have the technical training and by deciding which expert they find most credible.

---

Thank you for proving my case for me.

Yes, judges do this and it is an absolute, unmitigated disaster.

• That is why the DMCA continues in its currently absurd form.
  
• That is why reverse engineering (an absolutely vital concept for technological progress) is currently illegal.
  
• That is why Microsoft slips the noose time after time.
  
• That is why SCO hasn't been tossed on its keister yet and continues to engage in Microsoft-funded FUD to scare people out of using any Linux operating system.
  
• That is why the RIAA is having a field day winning cases that should be unwinnable.
  
• That is why 3-2-1 Studios is no longer allowed to sell DVD X-Copy that allowed people to make personal backups in accordance with the fair use and the Home Recording Act.
  
• That is why copyright, patent, and trademark law are completely out of whack.
  
• That is why the concept of public domain (an absolutely vital concept for creative expression) is effectively dead.
  
• That is why there are many high tech companies currently whose entire business model is the now famous: "profit through litigation."

The Judges who are making these decisions do not understand the technical nature of what they are ruling on and the results are horrific.

It appears that your love for the American legal process has clouded your judgement. Two of the biggest flaws with our current legal system are cases that devolve into battles between teams of "expert witnesses" and untrained judges making legal decisions on technical matters.

It is a very well known and highly publicised problem that far too many legal cases devolve into nothing more than both sides throwing their "expert witnesses" against each other to do battle in front of the jury. It is equally well known that since the juries are neither qualified nor specifically educated in the subject matter, they end up making their decision based on which experts they liked better, which ones were more attractive, or which ones were more persuasive public speakers. For lack of a better word, this is bad.

It is also well known (see above) that judges are TERRIBLE at deciding legal matters that involve high technology issues. They are easily bamboozled by expensive lawyers because the judges simply don't have sufficient understanding of the technology they are ruling on.

Taking these two failures of the legal system and applying them to politics makes absolutely no sense. You don't take the worst parts of one system and apply them to another system. These concepts don't work well in the legal system and they certainly won't work when applied to geopolitics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Damieux
Denigrating the opinions and suggesting that they should not express them is attempting to stifle free speech.

---

That is completely absurd. First, I did not denigrate anyone's opinion. Repeating that over and over does not make it true. Second, if I am not allowed to express my opinion that someone's speech does more harm than good, then it is *MY* free speech that is stifled.

I support the right of groups like the KKK, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, etc. to have marches, put up web sites, print books and pamphlets, etc. I also support the right of people to burn the American Flag. That doesn't mean I think they SHOULD do those things. There is a very important difference between saying "You shouldn't do that" and saying "You should not be ALLOWED to do that." I am doing the former. You are acting like I am doing the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
If one does not understand the subject matter, one cannot make an informed decision about the credibility of the experts. Thus, it just boils down to who one likes most or who has the best speaking or writing skills.

---

This is simply not true. You can definitely make a valid determination about the credibility of experts without first understanding the subject matter. First, you look at the credentials of the expert. This is not a matter of comparing who you “like” better. It’s a matter of who logically is in the best position to know. For instance, if it’s a technical matter, an engineer with years of experience is a more credible than a recent graduate with a bachelor of science degree. If you are weighing the opinions of newswriters about a current event, the writer on the scene has stronger credentials than a correspondent at the media’s office. Second, you consider the sources upon which the expert relies. An expert whose opinion is based on studies subjected to the scientific method might be given more credence than an expert whose opinion is based on unstructured impressions. Third, you consider the logical rationality of the opinion that the expert presents. Yes, this will be heavily influenced by the expert’s ability to express him or herself. Personally though, if someone doesn’t understand an idea well enough to communicate it to others than I question how well the person truly understands the idea. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, you weigh how well the expert’s opinion withstands the test of criticism from other experts.

To be honest, its really no different than deciding what to believe on any matter about which we do not have first-hand personal knowledge. Unless you want to believe only that which you witness yourself, you must decide whom you will credit. Its really no different when weighing the credibility of experts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Yes, judges do this and it is an absolute, unmitigated disaster

---

You are basing your conclusion on a few high profile cases in which you didn’t like the result. However, judges weigh the credibility of expert testimony in virtually every law suit filed. It is an unavoidable aspect of our legal system. Even if you relegated highly technical matters to the sole jurisdiction of technocrat judges and agencies, those judges and agencies will still ultimately have to make their decision based on weighing the credibility of competing experts. Also there is a huge systemic problem with this solution. The technocrat judge will bring assumptions and beliefs based on his or her own background that can’t be tested by the advocacy system or by cross examination. Frankly, I think its far better to have a judge who has no technical background, but is experienced in determining who is credible. The big problems arise when judges forget their role and begin to think that they are experts. I would much rather have a chance to present my experts to make my case and to challenge my opponent's experts than be subject to the whims of a government-appointed technocrat.

Bringing this tangent back to the topic under discussion, the question is do we let the current administration act like the technocrat and simply defer to the administration's "expertise"? Or do we require the administration's actions to withstand the test of competing ideas. I much prefer the latter, though it may at times lack efficiency for in the former I see the seeds of tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
First, I did not denigrate anyone's opinion. Second, if I am not allowed to express my opinion that someone's speech does more harm than good, then it is *MY* free speech that is stifled.

---

I am pretty confident with what I have written. I think I’ll just let people review the posts we’ve already exchanged and decide for themselves how you treated other people’s opinions and whether anyone attempted to stifle you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Damieux
I am pretty confident with what I have written. I think I’ll just let people review the posts we’ve already exchanged and decide for themselves how you treated other people’s opinions and whether anyone attempted to stifle you.

---

And I'm pretty confident that there's a whole 3 people who are reading this thread now (if there are more, they're just reading in morbid curiosity like me), since it's been hijacked. Don't hold your breath for other opinions.

Maybe. But you might be surprised. When I last glanced at the number of "views" of this thread this afternoon it was in the mid-400s. As I write this post its at 551. Of course, a lot of those are the same people repeatly viewing the thread. Still I think there are some people out there following along without joining the discussion.

Like I said, MORBID CURIOSITY!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
When unqualified people who are not sufficiently knowledgeable or trained in an extremely complicated technical issue resort to nothing more than weighing the credibility of experts, that is effectively the same as just picking the experts you like most. Think about it: If you don't understand the subject matter, how can a comparison of experts result in anything else?

Furthermore, there is a tremendous difference between the following:

1) Judging between experts for yourself and making personal conclusions.

2) Judging between experts and then sharing your own interpretations publicly as if YOU are now an expert as well.

If one does not understand the subject matter, one cannot make an informed decision about the credibility of the experts. Thus, it just boils down to who one likes most or who has the best speaking or writing skills.

---

Actually, in my own experience this is SO true. What I see alot of anymore is that people like or dislike a situation and then go out and research to find experts that support their like or dislike without fully understanding the situation that they like or dislike (emotion over reasoning). They simply go with the expert that agrees with THEM...it's not an informed decision based upon sound logic and/or knowledge of the subject, but they somehow feel that their feelings are validated because they found an expert to agree with them. I can say that I've been guilty of this very thing in the past as well.

That's what I think happens so much in the media and that is why I fear that so many positive things get missed. When everyone who does good has to defend the bad, people don't get an opportunity to grasp the actual good things because they are drowned out by all the negativity.

For me, if the government decides that we need more troops, then we need more troops. I fully believe that Bush is out to help America and everything that I've seen thus far is progressive and I have no reason to believe that our "occupation" is hurting Iraq moreso than helping.

Also, in response to a poll question result posted earlier, we will NOT be considered "liberators" until we have been successful in our mission. We will not be successful until we restore democracy. We cannot restore democracy if we do not have the support of the people. So, in that respect...if you denounce the government while they are attempting to restore democracy, you are, in essence, responsible for the failure of our mission.

Also, I agree with what Aristotle stated earlier about making judgement on the BEST way to do something when that something has not been done before. It takes balls to jump out there and do what needs to be done. If nobody ever stepped up to the plate for fear of judgement, we'd never get anywhere. For THAT alone, I commend Bush.

Meh. Calling someone's opinion worthless crap (not that I'm saying anyone has done it here) does not equal stifling their free speech. That's the mistake made by all those moonbat movie stars who whine about their free speech being stifled when people ignore their idiotic opinions. :p