No, I meant USSR. Iraq was in a special position of being both a former close US ally and still in the valuable-to-the-US geopolitical position which made it an ally in the first place, and that is why Saddam engaged in the reasoning he did. The USSR was a former close US ally, yes, but played no such valuable role and both recognized each other as their principal threat after the Nazis were defeated.
You haven’t shown that Punoxysm is wrong, you’ve argued that Punoxysm is wrong.
I don’t know how I can point out he’s wrong any more clearly. Saddam had good reason to think the threats were bluffs. Stalin would not have because those reasons did not apply to the USSR. The situations are not the same.
If Hussein had allowed the inspections, that would support your position.
Yes, but we already know he didn’t. So the question is his motivations; Punoxysm has asserted that if he did it for irrational reasons, then it supports his criticism, and when I pointed out that he did it for rational reasons, he then did it supported his position! So why did he not say in the first place simply, ‘Saddam didn’t allow inspections; this is evidence the strategy cannot work’? Obviously, because he felt the irrational qualifier was necessary right up until I produced the references. (It is a basic principal of natural language that you do not use unnecessary restrictions or qualifiers when they are not relevant.)
So, just to be clear: you believe that in the hypothetical world in which the US threatens to attack the USSR if it does not allow inspections, the USSR would have no reason to think this serves a useful purpose, and would be therefore justified in concluding it was a bluff?
Stalin would not have because those reasons did not apply to the USSR. The situations are not the same.
You are saying that there are reasons for thinking it was a bluff that did not apply to the USSR. That’s denying the antecedent.
So the question is his motivations; Punoxysm has asserted that if he did it for irrational reasons,
you believe that in the hypothetical world in which the US threatens to attack the USSR if it does not allow inspections, the USSR would have no reason to think this serves a useful purpose, and would be therefore justified in concluding it was a bluff?
No, that’s like, the opposite of what I mean. I’m baffled you could not understand this (and similarly that you had to ask for clarification about my BMR example in the other comment when I had said clearly that a statement would be evidence against an impending bust). If this is the best you can read what I’ve written, then I think maybe it’s time for me to call this conversation quits. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or think too differently, but either way...
You are saying that there are reasons for thinking it was a bluff that did not apply to the USSR. That’s denying the antecedent.
Good thing we’re not using deductive logic! Denying the antecedent is, like almost all classical fallacies, a useful Bayesian piece of evidence. By removing one potential way for it to be a bluff, the probability of being a bluff necessarily falls; by removing the antecedent, the consequent is that much less likely.
It’s not clear to me what you’re referring to.
‘He’ is Saddam. Obviously. That was how the comment thread started and what I was objecting to and I even name Saddam in the same paragraph you claim to be confused by!
EDIT: looking back through your comments, you seem to consistently and repeatedly misunderstand what I said and ignore parts where I explained clearly what I meant, in a way well beyond an ordinarily obtuse commenter. I now think you’re doing this deliberately, and so I’m going to stop now.
All you’re saying is that Saddam called the USA’s bluff and was wrong and it was disastrous. That could EASILY have happened with an attempt by the US to demand inspections from Russia.
Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies’ long-term goals.
I read “it” in “it served a useful role” as referring to “demanding inspections”. And I took “which meant the threats were bluffs” to mean “in the hypothetical involving the USSR, the threats were bluffs”. Because the prior clause had clearly established that you were talking about the USSR. Maybe instead of accusing me of bad faith, you could actually try to clear up the confusion. I’ll be downvoting your posts until you do. It would be nice if you could write your sentence with correct and clear grammar, especially when dealing with complex compound sentences, and if you can’t be bothered to do so, then don’t complain about people having trouble parsing your sentences. When there’s a failure in communication, attributing all of the blame to the other person is a very anti-rationalist position to take.
By removing one potential way for it to be a bluff, the probability of being a bluff necessarily falls
You didn’t merely say that the probability is lower; you presented it as a logical certainty.
‘He’ is Saddam. Obviously. That was how the comment thread started and what I was objecting to and I even name Saddam in the same paragraph you claim to be confused by!
You said that Punoxysm asserted that Saddam did it for irrational reasons. I don’t think that it is entirely clear as to what statement by Punoxysm you consider to be the making that assertion. If I had been unclear about who you were talking about, I would have said who, rather than what.
gwern, I was under the impression that this is a rationalist site, dedicated to the idea that people are fallible creatures, and should not act with the conviction that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I have done more than my fair share to resolve this misunderstanding. I have politely asked for clarification. I have even gone to the trouble of asking a third party to read the posts, and this third party agrees that the sentence “Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies’ long-term goals.” is confusing. Now, the question is: are you willing to act like an adult, or are you going to just have a temper tantrum because someone doesn’t understand you? Are you willing to go to the same effort that I have, and get your own third party (fourth party, I suppose) to read the sentence, and see whether they understand it? There are all sorts of ambiguities in your sentence, such as whether it is intended to be parsed as “(the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA) which meant the threats were bluffs” or “the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking (it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs)”. Note that the latter is grammatically incorrect, in that the “which” should be a “that”. And no, it’s not being a Grammar Nazi to point out grammatical errors that affect readability. If you can’t have a calm, rational, and civil conversation about this, then I can only conclude that it you are not a rationalist.
gwern, I was under the impression that this is a rationalist site, dedicated to the idea that people are fallible creatures, and should not act with the conviction that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong...Now, the question is: are you willing to act like an adult, or are you going to just have a temper tantrum because someone doesn’t understand you?...If you can’t have a calm, rational, and civil conversation about this, then I can only conclude that it you are not a rationalist.
I really don’t care about your underhanded attempts to shame me into further engagement, and I stand by my earlier comment.
Openly asking you to explain your post is “underhanded”? You have already engaged in further engagement. It’s just that that engagement consists of going to another thread and insulting me, rather than actually addressing the issue in the thread that it came up in like an adult.
No, I meant USSR. Iraq was in a special position of being both a former close US ally and still in the valuable-to-the-US geopolitical position which made it an ally in the first place, and that is why Saddam engaged in the reasoning he did. The USSR was a former close US ally, yes, but played no such valuable role and both recognized each other as their principal threat after the Nazis were defeated.
I don’t know how I can point out he’s wrong any more clearly. Saddam had good reason to think the threats were bluffs. Stalin would not have because those reasons did not apply to the USSR. The situations are not the same.
Yes, but we already know he didn’t. So the question is his motivations; Punoxysm has asserted that if he did it for irrational reasons, then it supports his criticism, and when I pointed out that he did it for rational reasons, he then did it supported his position! So why did he not say in the first place simply, ‘Saddam didn’t allow inspections; this is evidence the strategy cannot work’? Obviously, because he felt the irrational qualifier was necessary right up until I produced the references. (It is a basic principal of natural language that you do not use unnecessary restrictions or qualifiers when they are not relevant.)
So, just to be clear: you believe that in the hypothetical world in which the US threatens to attack the USSR if it does not allow inspections, the USSR would have no reason to think this serves a useful purpose, and would be therefore justified in concluding it was a bluff?
You are saying that there are reasons for thinking it was a bluff that did not apply to the USSR. That’s denying the antecedent.
It’s not clear to me what you’re referring to.
No, that’s like, the opposite of what I mean. I’m baffled you could not understand this (and similarly that you had to ask for clarification about my BMR example in the other comment when I had said clearly that a statement would be evidence against an impending bust). If this is the best you can read what I’ve written, then I think maybe it’s time for me to call this conversation quits. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or think too differently, but either way...
Good thing we’re not using deductive logic! Denying the antecedent is, like almost all classical fallacies, a useful Bayesian piece of evidence. By removing one potential way for it to be a bluff, the probability of being a bluff necessarily falls; by removing the antecedent, the consequent is that much less likely.
‘He’ is Saddam. Obviously. That was how the comment thread started and what I was objecting to and I even name Saddam in the same paragraph you claim to be confused by!
EDIT: looking back through your comments, you seem to consistently and repeatedly misunderstand what I said and ignore parts where I explained clearly what I meant, in a way well beyond an ordinarily obtuse commenter. I now think you’re doing this deliberately, and so I’m going to stop now.
I read “it” in “it served a useful role” as referring to “demanding inspections”. And I took “which meant the threats were bluffs” to mean “in the hypothetical involving the USSR, the threats were bluffs”. Because the prior clause had clearly established that you were talking about the USSR. Maybe instead of accusing me of bad faith, you could actually try to clear up the confusion. I’ll be downvoting your posts until you do. It would be nice if you could write your sentence with correct and clear grammar, especially when dealing with complex compound sentences, and if you can’t be bothered to do so, then don’t complain about people having trouble parsing your sentences. When there’s a failure in communication, attributing all of the blame to the other person is a very anti-rationalist position to take.
You didn’t merely say that the probability is lower; you presented it as a logical certainty.
You said that Punoxysm asserted that Saddam did it for irrational reasons. I don’t think that it is entirely clear as to what statement by Punoxysm you consider to be the making that assertion. If I had been unclear about who you were talking about, I would have said who, rather than what.
gwern, I was under the impression that this is a rationalist site, dedicated to the idea that people are fallible creatures, and should not act with the conviction that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I have done more than my fair share to resolve this misunderstanding. I have politely asked for clarification. I have even gone to the trouble of asking a third party to read the posts, and this third party agrees that the sentence “Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies’ long-term goals.” is confusing. Now, the question is: are you willing to act like an adult, or are you going to just have a temper tantrum because someone doesn’t understand you? Are you willing to go to the same effort that I have, and get your own third party (fourth party, I suppose) to read the sentence, and see whether they understand it? There are all sorts of ambiguities in your sentence, such as whether it is intended to be parsed as “(the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA) which meant the threats were bluffs” or “the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking (it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs)”. Note that the latter is grammatically incorrect, in that the “which” should be a “that”. And no, it’s not being a Grammar Nazi to point out grammatical errors that affect readability. If you can’t have a calm, rational, and civil conversation about this, then I can only conclude that it you are not a rationalist.
I really don’t care about your underhanded attempts to shame me into further engagement, and I stand by my earlier comment.
Openly asking you to explain your post is “underhanded”? You have already engaged in further engagement. It’s just that that engagement consists of going to another thread and insulting me, rather than actually addressing the issue in the thread that it came up in like an adult.
no, saying shit like “I thought this was a rationalist site” is an underhanded attempt to shame someone into saying what you want them to say.