roland comments on What is Bayesianism? - Less Wrong

81 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 February 2010 07:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (211)
Tags: bayesian introduction probability

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roland 27 February 2010 03:07:04AM *  1 point [-]

Others considered their prior for "the government is ready to conduct massively risky operations that kill thousands of its own citizens as a publicity stunt", judged that to be overwhelmingly unlikely,

Here I have to take objection: you framed it as a publicity stunt but actually 9-11 has shaped everything in the USA: domestic policies, foreign policies, military spending the identity of the nation as a whole(It's US vs. THEM) etc... So there is a lot at stake.

Btw, as far as the willingness of the government to kill its own citzens goes, more than 4,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq until now(over 30,000 wounded) more than 1,000 in Afghanistan, compared to less than 3,000 in the WTC attack. This was on known false information, remember the original claim of WMDs in Iraq? So if you seriously maintain that the government is not willing to sacrifice its own citizens I want to know where you get your priors from.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 27 February 2010 09:14:03AM 4 points [-]

Well argued, but if you credit the U.S. government such brazen cruelty toward the citizens it nominally serves, then why would the government need a pretense at all? Why not invade with only forged documents and lies? No self-inflicted wound should be necessary; the U.S. military may not fear intervention by other nations' forces if they appear to only pick on a few small oil-rich nations.

Comment author: roland 27 February 2010 08:09:52PM 2 points [-]

Forged documents and lies are not enough to convince the public opinion or better to arouse strong emotions, something more salient is needed. You have to remember, at 9-11 basically the whole world stood still watching the events unfold. Wikipedia:

The NATO council declared that the attacks on the United States were considered an attack on all NATO nations and, as such, satisfied Article 5 of the NATO charter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#cite_note-155

Btw article 5 allows the use of armed(military) force. This was the official NATO position even before there was any investigation as to who was supposedly behind the "attacks".

Anyone arguing against military action can be and still is decried as unpatriotic, callous towards the families of those who died. You cannot achieve this with just a batch of documents.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit