Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (18963)	2/16/2002 10:42:00 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

(I skimmed the third as it's an area that's not on my list of immediate concerns, which are driven by the immediacy of plans afoot that will be complete long before any university is likely to even make a multi-committee decision on where to do lunch). You are so right. My award for the line of the week. John

To: SirRealist who wrote (18963)	2/16/2002 10:46:49 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

But two areas of analysis remain suspect. First, there is the possibility that they'll advance positions likely to be advantageous to their companies. Even if we choose to grant that they are magnanimous enough not to push ideas that might directly line their company coffers, it is reasonable to conclude that they are both in favor of the oil business and its profitability. Which can, at least, slightly skew their objectivity. Second, in being pro-oil business, it raises the biggest question about their perspectives on alternate energy possibilities. Indeed, the analysis presents a dismissive approach to that topic. It's almost entirely contained in one concluding paragraph: Kevin, I agree with you, in general, on these words of caution. But everyone brings their agendas to these sorts of conversations. Thus, it seems to me it is beholden to us to be aware of precisely the limits you point out. And, FA noted, very clearly, the authors' affiliations. And to hope, and this was the point of my comment about FA publishing several articles in this area, that they will supplement this article with others from different corners of expertise and agendas. John (let me congratulate you on a very thorough analysis)

To: SirRealist who wrote (18963)	2/16/2002 2:01:12 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

valid points. let me offer some thoughts in return. Regarding whether the Russia/Saudi authors are shills for the oil industry, there are three ways to evaluate that question. The first is through personal knowledge of the people in question or their work. This is the best way, but obviously a very labor-intensive one, and one that not's necessarily available to most of us. The second way is by relying on the authority of the venue in which the article appears. This can be useful to the extent that certain publications can demonstrate a track record of reasonably fair and objective discourse, or the opposite--although the first approach is always preferable. The third way is by evaluating the internal logic and coherence of the arguments presented, which to some extent stand or fall independently of their authors' affiliations. The problem here is reading carefully and separating out three different elements in pieces like these: knowledge, judgment, and opinion. Knowledge involves mastery of history and objective reality. It is subject to verification. Some people simply know more than others, and if there are facts that are relevant to a particular case, knowing them is important. To take the Pollack article as an example, what happened in Iraq in 1991, for example, or what the current battle order of the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi opposition is, involve knowledge. Judgment involves informed and considered thoughts or speculation about factual questions that unfortunately can't be looked up in a book somewhere. Thus, how the Iraqi opposition would fare in battle against the Iraqi armed forces is (or rather may eventually be) a question of fact, but until the battle occurs speculation about its outcome is a matter of judgment. Opinion involves personal thoughts about subjective things (such as priorities, acceptable risks, etc.). Whether it is worth embarking on a particular military operation, given a consensus about the expected costs and benefits, is a matter of opinion. When discussing something by an "expert"--or anybody, for that matter--one should separate points into those three categories. The amount of knowledge they can bring to bear is obviously important. Their judgments are perhaps even more so, because that's the area in which we have to rely on the experts most (although with much skepticism). Their opinions, finally, are no better or worse than ours, and should be taken as such. tb@complicatedenough?.com