From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 10:57:10 MST
Robert J. Bradbury says:
> IMO, sticking ones head in the sand and hoping the problem will
> simply "go away" isn't an extropic approach. Go read the history
> books on WWII to see how far that approach will get you.
This kind of historical argument by analogy seems to embody the kind of
fallacy supporting belief in the power of prayer, `alternative medicine' and
Scientology: hey, I did X *and it worked*! As Robert obviously knows, that's
not a good way to test a claim. You need to look as well at cases where you
*didn't* do X *and it still worked*, and cases where you *did* do X *and it
didn't work*.
So one might suggest, perhaps with equal force (but neither is a good
argument):
IMO, sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will simply "go
away" is an extropic approach. Go read the history books on WWIII to see
how far that approach will get you.
To unpack that a little: there were no nuclear exchanges of USA versus
Soviet Union during the long WWIII concluded around 1989. There were no
invasions of each other's territory (although there were obviously bloody
proxies). No American President invaded Russia at the very hub of its Axis
of Evil to remove any vile tyrant and his weapons of mass destruction. And
look what happened as a result of this puling cowardice! ...erm, the Soviet
Union fell apart.
I'm NOT saying that this has any direct resonance with US[or UN] v Iraq. I'm
not even saying it's a particularly exact account of what happened with
US[or Free World] v Communist Menace. I am suggesting that `Go read the
history books on WWII to see how far that approach will get you' has limited
value as an argument.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:25:10 MST