Starting Over: A Proposal for Some Public Epistemology Re: Iraq
O.k., I take back what I said earlier. It's too early to give up. What we need here is a bit of public epistemology (or something similar).
I'm making this up on the fly, but what we need to do is to back up and clarify/come to agreement about issues like the following:
1. What exactly are the allegations against the administration?
2. Are we/should we be concerned with the falsehood of relevant claims, or with lying narrowly construed, or with deception more generally (something like epistemically irresponsible use of evidence)?
3. To the best of our knowledge, what was the consensus of the intelligence community at the time of invasion?
4. Are we/should we be concerned with the question "was the administration's overall conclusion about the danger posed by Iraq in accordance with that of the intelligence community?", or with questions about accordance regarding specific issues (e.g. UAVs, WMDs, aluminum tubes), or both?
This is just a first go at it, but if we really want to answer this question we'll start by settling the more abstract, less contentious issues first, coming to agreement about what claims are important and what would count as evidence for and against each of the relevant claims. Then we go accumulate the requisite evidence.
We can either just keep yelling at each other and repeating the same mantras over and over again or we can figure this out.
I want to figure it out, and I'm willing to toss out my preconceptions--to whatever degree that is humanly possible--to do so. It's more important to me to be right than to win an argument. Allow yourself to be set straight and you appear to be a fool for a little while; refuse to allow it and you really are a fool forever.
Waddaya think?
O.k., I take back what I said earlier. It's too early to give up. What we need here is a bit of public epistemology (or something similar).
I'm making this up on the fly, but what we need to do is to back up and clarify/come to agreement about issues like the following:
1. What exactly are the allegations against the administration?
2. Are we/should we be concerned with the falsehood of relevant claims, or with lying narrowly construed, or with deception more generally (something like epistemically irresponsible use of evidence)?
3. To the best of our knowledge, what was the consensus of the intelligence community at the time of invasion?
4. Are we/should we be concerned with the question "was the administration's overall conclusion about the danger posed by Iraq in accordance with that of the intelligence community?", or with questions about accordance regarding specific issues (e.g. UAVs, WMDs, aluminum tubes), or both?
This is just a first go at it, but if we really want to answer this question we'll start by settling the more abstract, less contentious issues first, coming to agreement about what claims are important and what would count as evidence for and against each of the relevant claims. Then we go accumulate the requisite evidence.
We can either just keep yelling at each other and repeating the same mantras over and over again or we can figure this out.
I want to figure it out, and I'm willing to toss out my preconceptions--to whatever degree that is humanly possible--to do so. It's more important to me to be right than to win an argument. Allow yourself to be set straight and you appear to be a fool for a little while; refuse to allow it and you really are a fool forever.
Waddaya think?
posted by Winston Smith at
11:27 AM
4 Comments:
In a sane world, sure. In this one, why bother?
Josh Marshall calls for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Basically same point as you.
Atrios agrees.
I meself don't think people are ever satisfied with commissions. There's usually a minority dissent, and folks go on believing the side they came to dance with.
Not really making a partisan point here. I've been interested in the investigations into the Pearl Harbor attack, which might be the closest historical analogue to this, and with parties reversed.
This article seems to be fair.
Seems right after Pearl Harbor, the Roberts Commission found the Hawaii commanders culpable and FDR and Washington in the clear. Then as the war was winding down in '44, a court-martial was held, and the commander was vindicated.
In November '45, after the war had ended, there was yet another commission which voted along party lines, and the Democrats, with an election coming up, once again vindicated FDR.
In 1995, the Democratic administration's Undersec of Defense killed another inquiry. Finally, in 1999, the Republicans passed a resolution vindicating the naval officers.
Fifty years later, and still they were voting along party lines. Thought you might find it probative. There will be no reconciliation.
Ha HA! For once I didn't sit around thinking about it for days, and wasn't beaten to the punch by Marshall. Though I did think about it for ONE day.
Thanks, Tom, for destroying my last shred of optimism about the possibility of rationality in politics.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home