Interesting People mailing list archives
More support for you and your list -- well reasoned
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:17:55 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Man Ching Cheung <mcheun01 () coral tufts edu> Reply-To: mcheun01 () coral tufts edu Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:22:44 -0500 To: dave () farber net Subject: More support for you and your list Dr. Farber, Your list has provided me with much more reasoned, sensical, and in-depth analysis than most newspapers and CNN. I realize you draw your material from friends and colleagues, some of whom work for those news organizations; I see the value of this list as you concentrating a good amount of the works of good analysts and reporters. I support the Bush plan for war against Iraq. I too have been persuaded that Mr. Hussein has violated basic codes of conduct towards his own citizens, that he has and continues to test chemical and biological weapons on the dissident elements within Iraq, that should the U.S. back down from enforcing disarmament supported by the U.N. in 1991 and re-affirmed in 2002 he will merely bide his time and make war again in the region, that he can supply terrorist organizations with weapons of immense destructive power, and that the U.S. should correct its past mistakes by removing strongmen it has supported in the past. Any discussion of war should center on the costs and benefits of leaving Mr. Hussein in power. The benefits of removing someone who uses brutal violence to repress political expression is obvious; that same person also tests neurotoxins on his own people (Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 25 Mar 2002). The main issue still unresolved in my mind is if Mr. Hussein would use his weapons against the U.S. if it does not attack him; that is the largest factor in analysing the cost of war. Will he attack the U.S. in the future? Will he blackmail the U.S., as North Korea will do now, so it can get aid? Is containment a viable solution? Sanctions restricted both North Korea and Iraq, yet both seem to have active weapons development programs. It seemed that the two actors are unreliable, and rules of normal diplomatic conduct do not restrain them. Will weapons be passed on to terrorist groups (it does not have to be a direct transfer; perhaps Iraq can supply weapons to a Islamist power friendly to both al-Qaeda and Iraq)? Does Mr. Hussein just want weapons... because he can, and therefore will not use it against U.S. unless he were prodded more? Your list has been the only place where I get consistent discussion of the above points. The press coverage usually devolves into an argument against war based on a fear of America being perceived as a bully or against Bush. Neither argument addresses the impact of leaving Mr. Hussein in power. If we were to use lessons from World War II, then we ought to realize that Roosevelt had argued that, should Hitler be allowed unbridled supremacy in Europe, it would only be a matter of time before America finds itself alone against an aggressive Reich. Few Congressmen bought that argument; further, the public sentiment is that the stories about German Nazis persecuting the Jews were exaggerated. Should Americans have argued against WWII based on the fear that America could be perceived as a neo-colonial power, putting out fires that inconvenience it? Should Americans have argued against the war based on opposing Roosevelt because he was a Roosevelt? I fear that is exactly how the press covers the war. My only response is that, even stupid people may do the right thing for the wrong reason. I also don't buy the argument that President Bush is a moron, and so we can discount everything he does. I think if Pres. Bush were an idiot, and he were controlled by Mr. Cheney, then that still leaves a rather intelligent person in control. If Pres. Bush were not a moron, then we have a smart man advised by a group of highly intelligent individuals. In either case, calling Pres. Bush stupid is self-destructive, even if it racks up karma for the Far Left Liberals. As much as objectivity has been bandied about to describe how one sees his own point-of-view, I have a stake in showing the public what true objectivity is. I am a doctoral student in a neuroscience program. I of course want to generate data and work of high quality. What that means is that I have to put build a story about how the olfactory system works from a sundry of details. As a result, I not only gather and present arguments, I have, in a sense, to create as well (to devise tests and record the results faithfully). True objectivity is simply addressing reasonable and irrational concerns reasonably. The problem I have with the press is that the coverage is based on personal attacks. America will lose its position in the European clique, or that President Bush is controlled by oil companies are bad arguments. In much the same way, I shouldn't dismiss, for example a phrenologist, by calling him a quack and a moron. I have to show him, to the audience, and to myself how he is wrong. What evidence do scientists have that dispute a model of brain function based on skull morphology? Or if a creationist throws verbal rotten eggs at Richard Dawkins, it is incumbent upon the involved to refuse to sling mud in kind, and address the actual questioning of scientific data. Objectivity means that one has to consider evidence even from a so-called interested-party source (like Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Drug), because if one refuses to consider that evidence based on financial or political ties, then that opens up the same argument against scientists who had done good work, but who concluded that carbon-based greenhouse effect is real, or that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer (the point is that, we all have a stake in something). Of course, all this dictates that all parties report their data as faithfully as possible, and not fabricate them; we must prosecute fraud ruthlessly and relentlessly. But we should never devolve to ad hominem attacks. I doubt I linked together the ideas about press coverage, the impending war, objectivity, and science well; I am sure you realize time and space does not permit me a much deeper analysis. I only hope that the main points, and my support for your work, are appreciated. Man Ching -- Man Ching Cheung Laboratory of John Kauer, Ph.D. Department of Neuroscience Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences Tufts University School of Medicine 136 Harrison Ave. Boston, MA 02111 Tel: 617-636-0483 Cel: 617-953-2774 *All views are my own, and not necessarily of anyone I am affliated with. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- More support for you and your list -- well reasoned Dave Farber (Mar 09)