NationStates Jolt Archive

And how does that change anything? What people are protesting is that you said that it does occasionally work and that someone else was wrong for saying it doesn't. All the while, you basically admitted that it works about as well as a picture of a clock does as a cronometer, which is to say, it doesn't work at all and every once in a while it turns out to be right if you go through the effort to find out if the information is accurate some other way.
The clock was your analogy, not mine. I'm sorry if I expounded on it incorrectly. Perhaps the analogy wasn't the greatest to compare to the long use of torture?.

You sigh like anyone was disagreeing with what you say the book presents, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of experts agree with the current argument being made.
Source? Experts? Because I provided a guy at the top of his field to show my points. Where's yours? You say it doesn't work ever. I say it doesn't work 99.999% of the time - that 0.001% might and probably is pure luck. Still doesn't justify it's use in my opinion, but it does justify it in the opinion of leaders. How is that a hard concept to grasp exactly?

Even if what you were saying had some merit beyond the points that most of us have already agreed to, it would be one source that you unsurprisingly can't reference here facing up against the bulk of the evidence.
What the fuck are you talking about? I gave name, title, and how to find it. If you're not arsed spending 3 seconds searching on google books (it's the first link on it by the way) that's your problem, not mine. My source is there. Where are yours?

As to your last bit, plain out nasty, runny, grass-filled bullshit. People regularly pray for money and protection. Must work, right?
Doesn't matter if you or I think it works - it matters if the people in charge think it works. They're the ones who are in power. I don't think it works - I'm not in power. My opinion means jack shit because I'm not in charge. You can call it bullshit all you want, it's reality.

There are a million things that people, even people claiming to be experts, do. They aren't automatically right just because they're ignorant enough to think they work.
Yeh I know. I don't think torture is right.

The clock was your analogy, not mine. I'm sorry if I expounded on it incorrectly. Perhaps the analogy wasn't the greatest to compare to the long use of torture?.

It was my analogy and was demonstrating that your claim was stupid. You're welcome to show where the analogy fails. You've not done so. Instead you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have a clear concept of the usage of 'works'. Basically, your attempt to address my analogy has done nothing but demonstrate just how silly your original claim was, a claim you're now desperately trying to abandon for a laughably worse claim.

Source? Experts? Because I provided a guy at the top of his field to show my points. Where's yours? You say it doesn't work ever. I say it doesn't work 99.999% of the time - that 0.001% might and probably is pure luck. Still doesn't justify it's use in my opinion, but it does justify it in the opinion of leaders. How is that a hard concept to grasp exactly?

The problem with the source you provided is offered below, but the point is that you're not actually claiming anything anyone disputed other than claiming that torture works with your source doesn't say and you haven't demonstrated. In fact, you've openly admitted what we all agree with, that it is unreliable to a HUGE degree and thus everything that comes from it amounts to random garble. The issue is that you don't appear to believe for an informational source to qualify as working that it has to actually, you know, work.

Meanwhile, as to your new argument, not only do you not know what 'works' means but you also don't know what 'justify' means. Saying a picture of a clock works based on it having the right time twice a day is not a justification. That is, by the way, more often than .001%.

Justify -
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.

Neither usage applies. It isn't being shown to be just or right, by your own admission. It is also not showing it to be well-grounded or warranted. Any other bad arguments you want to scramble for?

What the fuck are you talking about? I gave name, title, and how to find it. If you're not arsed spending 3 seconds searching on google books (it's the first link on it by the way) that's your problem, not mine. My source is there. Where are yours?

In a debate, it's not just enough to source. You have to provide the source. I take it you don't actually know how that works.

See, let's say I'm disputing the accuracy of your source. In order to debunk it, I'd have to go and find the book where I had a computer and the internet and I'd have to type passages in that I dispute or think prove my argument. Then people still wouldn't be able to look at my information in context. But you know that. What you're banking on by using a source that is unavailable on the net when so many are is that no one will actually bother to go get it.

If you wish to use a source in an argument on the internet, provide the actual text or excerpts you think are relevant and we'll go from there. Hell, even in the case of a paper or book, you better be able to produce your source on command. You didn't learn that in school?

Doesn't matter if you or I think it works - it matters if the people in charge think it works. They're the ones who are in power. I don't think it works - I'm not in power. My opinion means jack shit because I'm not in charge. You can call it bullshit all you want, it's reality.

First, YOU do think it works.

Second, this new argument would be fine if that was the claim we were disputing. You're trying, not so successfully, to pretend like you made a different argument. Let me help you out.

Despite what KoL would like to believe, torture can and does work on the rare occasion. However, this leads some people to believe that it works more often than not, is more efficient, more effective and faster than other forms of evidence gathering.

It doesn't.

I changed the bolding. What is being disputed is the bolded part. You can do your best to pretend like anyone disputed the other bits, but the fact is that you've demonstrated rather soundly that you don't know the meaning of the word "works". Sources of information HAVE to provide useful information reliably or they don't work. If the same information has to be obtained elsewhere in order for you to have it, then it doesn't work. It's really that simple.

Worse, you were attacking someone else's claim that it doesn't work. And now after half a dozen pages, you provide a source, conveniently unavailable for quoting or analysis, that gives the opinion of ONE expert who, not so amusingly, doesn't actually agree with your original claim.

The really funny part is that in your original post you point how torture works AND that it is not justified. It's amusing that you have quickly tried to run to the opposite argument.

Yeh I know. I don't think torture is right.

But you do think it works.

-snip-

I will come back to this shortly, but I would like to point out that in 17 pages (by my settings) you have provided one link, which was already present in the thread.

In that link, my source is cited.

What assumes me is that you feel for a source to up to your standards, it must be presented to you in a linky format from the internet. If it is a book it is not good enough. If it a book which is available electronically, you still call it an "unavailable source".

I will come back to this shortly, but I would like to point out that in 17 pages (by my settings) you have provided one link, which was already present in the thread.

In that link, my source is cited.

What assumes me is that you feel for a source to up to your standards, it must be presented to you in a linky format from the internet. If it is a book it is not good enough. If it a book which is available electronically, you still call it an "unavailable source".

For a source to be up to debate standards, it has to be available for review. The problem is that verifying that it says what you claim it says and disputing that if necessary requires a monumental effort, since I'd have to find the book, likely order it, receive it, make pdf's of it and then dispute the claim. So it's not a viable source for this format. You're talking about returning to this argument in a few weeks to prove you wrong. There are plenty of viable sources available in this format. Are you actually arguing that none of them make an argument you support?

Furthermore, on the point of whether or not torture is effective is agree, so one wonders what you think your source proves. Are you trying to prove that the morons that run this country THINK it works? Who is disputing that? Are you trying to prove that experts on the subject THINK it works? One would hope not, since your source isn't claiming it works and the bulk of the experts agree it doesn't.

What exactly is the claim you think your source supports?

The only claims that have disputed that you've been involved in is:
1. That KoL is wrong and torture works.
1.a. this seems to hinge on you claiming that being right by pure luck counts as working for an information source. That would make the Bible a working source for science, by the way.

2. That giving useful information (provided one researches it and collects it another way so as to prove it's actually useful) once in a blue moon is a justification for its use.

Those are the only two claims I've disputed that you've made. Which of those do you think your source supports?

It was my analogy and was demonstrating that your claim was stupid. You're welcome to show where the analogy fails. You've not done so. Instead you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have a clear concept of the usage of 'works'. Basically, your attempt to address my analogy has done nothing but demonstrate just how silly your original claim was, a claim you're now desperately trying to abandon for a laughably worse claim.
Let's isolate it - but feel free to break into this at the point you feel I have diverged from/you wish to dispute.

The goal of confessional torture is to obtain information. If information is obtained, then it can logically be assumed that the use of confessional torture worked.

A suspect has information. It is known he has information. He will not reveal this information willingly. So he is brutally beaten. He then reveals the information, due to the continued brutal treatment. After revealing the information, he is no longer beaten.

Can it be said that confessional torture worked?


The problem with the source you provided is offered below, but the point is that you're not actually claiming anything anyone disputed other than claiming that torture works with your source doesn't say and you haven't demonstrated.
One instance which some people say torture did yield accurate results - or in common parlance, worked.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E3DC1E3FF93AA35750C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Mr. Murad, a Pakistani, was not a talker. Although a computer in his apartment contained information about his plans, he resisted requests to give details of what he was doing. His interrogators reportedly beat him so badly that most of his ribs were broken; they extinguished cigarettes on his genitals; they made him sit on ice cubes; they forced water down his throat so that he nearly drowned.

This went on for several weeks. In the end, he provided names, dates and places behind a Qaeda plan to blow up 11 commercial airliners and fly another one into the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also confessed to a plot to assassinate the pope.
This occurred in 1995. From my knowledge of this case, this man was tortured both physically and psychologically for about 3-4 weeks. Efficient? Hardly. Did it reveal information? If so, did the use of confessional torture in this case work?

The issue is that you don't appear to believe for an informational source to qualify as working that it has to actually, you know, work.
Why do you assume that everything comes out as garble? Can you provide evidence that every single use of torture has only ever obtained garble?

Meanwhile, as to your new argument, not only do you not know what 'works' means but you also don't know what 'justify' means. Saying a picture of a...Don't try to justify his rudeness.
I'm talking about justification both the moral and legal sense. It cannot be morally justified as it violates basic human dignity. It cannot be legally justified as there is national to regional to international legislation prohibiting it's usage.

It is also not showing it to be well-grounded or warranted. Any other bad arguments you want to scramble for?
I think it would be safe to say confessional torture is used for issues of state security (terrorism, etc). Agreed? If so, who has ever said states use 'well grounded' policies in this sphere? In state security, governments feel "anything goes", just so long as something catastrophic doesn't happen on their watch. It may very well be a bad argument - but it's not mine, it's policy that goes on today.

In a debate, it's not just enough to source. You have to provide the source. I take it you don't actually know how that works.
See, let's say I'm disputing the accuracy of your source. In order to debunk it, I'd have to go and find the book where I had a computer and the internet and I'd have to type passages in that I dispute or think prove my argument. Then people still wouldn't be able to look at my information in context. But you know that. What you're banking on by using a source that is unavailable on the net when so many are is that no one will actually bother to go get it.
Unavailable? It's google books. Do you know what that is?

If you wish to use a source in an argument on the internet, provide the actual text or excerpts you think are relevant and we'll go from there. Hell, even in the case of a paper or book, you better be able to produce your source on command. You didn't learn that in school?
If someone can show me how to copy/paste from google books preview, I'd be much obliged. I'm not sure if that is possible due to the 'copyright' issue.


I am unable to state categorically that "Torture never works" if the aim is to gain information. I am equally unable to categorically state that "Torture always works" if the aim is to gain information.

[quote]I changed the bolding. What is being disputed is the bolded part. You can do your best to pretend like anyone disputed the other bits, but the fact is that you've demonstrated rather soundly that you don't know the meaning of the word "works".
Maybe your definition of 'works' simply doesn't fit the definition of those who authorise torture?

Sources of information HAVE to provide useful information reliably or they don't work. If the same information has to be obtained elsewhere in order for you to have it, then it doesn't work. It's really that simple.
You know in order to have information authenticated, it will have to be compared with other information?

Worse, you were attacking someone else's claim that it doesn't work. And now after half a dozen pages, you provide a source, conveniently unavailable for quoting or analysis, that gives the opinion of ONE expert who, not so amusingly, doesn't actually agree with your original claim.
Unavailable to paste - not to look at or read. And I wasn't 'attacking' anyone. What Rejali concludes is that as an overall policy (i.e if instituted on a permissible, wide spread scale within a state) it doesn't result in an accurate, effective or efficient method of intelligence gathering. If you take each instance of confessional torture individually, can you say the goal of confessional torture isn't met, if the goal is to obtain information?

The really funny part is that in your original post you point how torture works AND that it is not justified. It's amusing that you have quickly tried to run to the opposite argument.
Despite earlier quoting my post, you now feel the need to omit what I feel is quite an important part - "on the rare occasion".


Edit: Jocabia, I don't intend to come across as snarky, so sorry about my earlier language. Bad couple of days, so I'm sorry. ;)

Let's isolate it - but feel free to break into this at the point you feel I have diverged from/you wish to dispute.

The goal of confessional torture is to obtain information. If information is obtained, then it can logically be assumed that the use of confessional torture worked.

A suspect has information. It is known he has information. He will not reveal this information willingly. So he is brutally beaten. He then reveals the information, due to the continued brutal treatment. After revealing the information, he is no longer beaten.

Can it be said that confessional torture worked?

And here is where you go off the rails.

The goal of confessional torture is to obtain useful information. The problem is the information is NEVER useful. It only provides information that MAY in rare cases match up with useful information we got from a reliable source. It is, at best, confirmational, which is not the purpose of confessional torture.

This is what makes the clock analogy useful. It's because the picture of a clock never useful. It only gives us information that may find out is "right" provided we have an actual reliable clock available.

Unfortunately, your argument hinges on making the definition of torture working so ludicrous that one can't help but laugh at you. Are you honestly claiming that torture works no matter what information is obtained?

Yay, boys, the torture worked. We got information. Granted the information we got was that his drycleaner is gay and it turned out he doesn't have a drycleaner, but it worked, because we call it working regardless of what information we get.

For rational people, the only way we could consider torture to have worked is if we suspected a suspect had useful information and upon torturing him that information was given up and could be considered reasonably reliable. The problem is that none of this is true. From torture, we ALWAYS get information. The only way that information can be used at all is if we get that information elsewhere in a way that isn't completely and utterly unreliable. That's not working by any definition anyone would reasonable use.

Now, you asked whether I know that information must be verified another way to be useful. Of course I do. You've admitted that torture rarely results in information that is correct. Assuming that is true, the only way to make into anything useful is to have another source that provides the information that is more reliable. Otherwise, you chase down every possible lead from torture, which isn't useful, since you could do that anyway.

It's like claiming that climbing on the back of an orca is a working means for traveling to Hawaii. Now, granted, you'll probably drown along the way, and there is no likelihood whatsoever you'd get there if you survived, but hey, if there is even the slimmest possibility, that works, right?

Ok, I'll interject here too
And here is where you go off the rails.

The goal of confessional torture is to obtain useful information. The problem is the information is NEVER useful.
That's a blanket statement.

It only provides information that MAY in rare cases match up with useful information we got from a reliable source. It is, at best, confirmational, which is not the purpose of confessional torture.
No, at best it gives you brand new information from which you then go about corroborating - maybe something that someone missed. At worst, perhaps, it simply matches up with already reliable information.

Are you honestly claiming that torture works no matter what information is obtained?

Yay, boys, the torture worked. We got information. Granted the information we got was that his drycleaner is gay and it turned out he doesn't have a drycleaner, but it worked, because we call it working regardless of what information we get.
I would have assumed that we both meant "information" that pertained to something substantial. Like, "who is your commander?", "Where is the location of X person or Y base". Did we pass each other on that one? :tongue:

For rational people, the only way we could consider torture to have worked is if we suspected a suspect had useful information and upon torturing him that information was given up and could be considered reasonably reliable.
Agreed.

From torture, we ALWAYS get information. True.

The only way that information can be used at all is if we get that information elsewhere in a way that isn't completely and utterly unreliable.
As in, getting confirmation that person X is written in a document as [random code cypher]. That would corroborate previously suspected information, but 'confirmed' through torture. No?

Ok, I'll interject here too

That's a blanket statement.

An accurate one. One you've not been able to dispute without completely redefining the word "work" to actually mean "some people THINK it works".

No, at best it gives you brand new information from which you then go about corroborating - maybe something that someone missed. At worst, perhaps, it simply matches up with already reliable information.

The problem is that the brand new information is available in other more reliable ways which they use to corroborate it. You confirm this by admitting they have corroborate and that they have the means to do so.

At worst, it's complete and utter bullshit, which is nearly always true.

I would have assumed that we both meant "information" that pertained to something substantial. Like, "who is your commander?", "Where is the location of X person or Y base". Did we pass each other on that one? :tongue:

Even assuming that, your definition is fallacious. The goal isn't to get false information.


Agreed.

Again, bullshit. If you agree with that statement then torture NEVER works. Because the information is not reliable. Otherwise, it wouldn't be right by luck, but it would just be right and reliable. You've admitted that other means are required to "confirm" the information.

As in, getting confirmation that person X is written in a document as [random code cypher]. That would corroborate previously suspected information, but 'confirmed' through torture. No?

Except the confirmation isn't in itself useful. It's only if the "confirmation" pans out, which requires a person to test the information in a way they could have done in the first place.

Even if I have three people who all give the same story under torture there is still the likelihood that they have a cover story. It's only when you investigate them and find out their story is true that you can consider it useful, and that is very similar to seeing the time on a painting, finding an actual working clock, finding out the time in the painting is right and saying the painting told you the time.

An accurate one.
Really then...


The goal of confessional torture is to obtain useful information. The problem is the information is NEVER useful.

Was this information not useful? Mr. Murad, ...
This went on for several weeks. In the end, he provided names, dates and places behind a Qaeda plan to blow up 11 commercial airliners and fly another one into the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also confessed to a plot to assassinate the pope.

The problem is that the brand new information is available in other more reliable ways which they use to corroborate it.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - you don't always know that is available in other means.

At worst, it's complete and utter bullshit, which is nearly always true.
Alright yeh, fair enough - at the absolute worst it's nonsense. Again the argument is "better safe than sorry".


Again, bullshit. If you agree with that statement then torture NEVER works. Because the information is not reliable.
See above for an example of where torture was used to gain reliable information.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be right by luck, but it would just be right and reliable.
Reliable information can be gotten even by chance - rarely, but it can still happen.

You've admitted that other means are required to "confirm" the information.
Like most forms of information. Even when posting on an internet forum, it pays to double check from another source to make sure you were accurate.

which requires a person to test the information in a way they could have done in the first place.
Not if the new information was only revealed by the suspect under duress.

Even if I have three people who all give the same story under torture there is still the likelihood that they have a cover story.
That is certainly a possibility, no one would deny that. If you have nothing else to go on and the three stories match, are you going to take the risk and disregard their statements if people's lives are at stake?

Really then...



Was this information not useful?

Mr. Murad, ...
This went on for several weeks. In the end, he provided names, dates and places behind a Qaeda plan to blow up 11 commercial airliners and fly another one into the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also confessed to a plot to assassinate the pope.

Was any of this stuff he said true? Or was it just what he thought the interrogators wanted to hear? I would bet money on the latter.

Saying one way or another whether torture is objectively reliable or not for certain is pretty absurd. It hasn't, and cannot, be empirically tested, since nobody wants to volunteer to be tortured. Looking at the history of torture is not useful, since much of the intelligence gained from torture is classified, and we cannot wind back the clocks and see if the torturers would have been able to ascertain information they have gathered using different methods.

Was any of this stuff he said true? Or was it just what he thought the interrogators wanted to hear? I would bet money on the latter.

More importantly, could they believe him? No, they couldn't. They couldn't deem it to be true without first verifying in some reliable way, which would have revealed the information.

As I've said repeatedly, and he's been unable to even remotely refute, it's comparable to having a picture of a clock and calling it useful for telling the time.

Haven't you guys ever seen 24? Torture clearly works every time. Unless you're Jack Bauer.

No terrorist loves their country as much as Jack Bauer loves America.

Reliable information can be gotten even by chance - rarely, but it can still happen.

We're done here. You don't appear to know English. Reliable means that you can reasonably count on it to be accurate. By your definition, a magic 8-ball is a reliable source of information. Of course, that's not an English definition, but, hey, while we're making up the meaning of words, have a shocking dragon, goober.

have a shocking dragon, goober.

I cant believe you would use such language:eek:

We're done here. You don't appear to know English. Reliable means that you can reasonably count on it to be accurate. By your definition, a magic 8-ball is a reliable source of information.
Doubtful, since a magic 8 ball has a stock number of answers to give.

Of course, that's not an English definition, but, hey, while we're making up the meaning of words, have a shocking dragon, goober.
Wow. Argument completely refuted then.

Saying one way or another whether torture is objectively reliable or not for certain is pretty absurd.
According to Jocabia, there is certainty.

Doubtful, since a magic 8 ball has a stock number of answers to give.


Wow. Argument completely refuted then.


According to Jocabia, there is certainty.
its time to let it go.

jocabia is unable to do it so you have to.

thank you in advance.

Doubtful, since a magic 8 ball has a stock number of answers to give.

So does a clock. How reliable something is for information has nothing to do with the number of answers it can give. It has to do with whether or not one can reasonably count on the information it gives being accurate. You've already admitted that you cannot reasonably count on information coming form torture to be accurate.

Like I said, there is no English definition of reliable that includes "rarely accurate".

its time to let it go.

jocabia is unable to do it so you have to.

thank you in advance.

Your starfish has a lovely caligraphy this computer.

According to Jocabia, there is certainty.

Which is why the argument is so silly. The argument is over how to interpret abstract analogies (like the photograph of the clock), because there is practically no data on which to base any arguments.

Which is why the argument is so silly. The argument is over how to interpret abstract analogies (like the photograph of the clock), because there is practically no data on which to base any arguments.

But there is. It has been studied. It has been examined. And the overwhelming concensus on the subject is that the information it produces is not remotely reliable. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with any expertise on the subject that claims otherwise. Even the source provided by PM doesn't claim otherwise.

We do have experts we can look to. We do have sources. We do have examples. And the examples demonstrate that most of what comes out of torture is an unmitigated steaming pile of bullshit.

But there is. It has been studied. It has been examined. And the overwhelming concensus on the subject is that the information it produces is not remotely reliable. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with any expertise on the subject that claims otherwise. Even the source provided by PM doesn't claim otherwise.


The thing is, I've read shit loads of studies on it (most of them are from pretentious sociologists), but none of them use empirical data - because there is none (see my other post in this thread). They all contain speculation and projection and 'intuitive truths', and using a select few historical examples which we don't have much information on. But I'm not discounting the possibility of a source that actually uses proper testable data (although I do find it highly unlikely):


We do have experts we can look to. We do have sources. We do have examples. And the examples demonstrate that most of what comes out of torture is an unmitigated steaming pile of bullshit.

Feel free to cite a source that shows that torture is objectively and categorically unreliable, that makes use of empirical testable data, and takes into account the numerous different types of torture and contexts.

The thing is, I've read shit loads of studies on it (most of them are from pretentious sociologists), but none of them use empirical data - because there is none (see my other post in this thread). They all contain speculation and projection and 'intuitive truths', and using a select few historical examples which we don't have much information on. But I'm not discounting the possibility of a source that actually uses proper testable data (although I do find it highly unlikely):

So your argument is that because you don't have access to the information, no one does. Interesting that you think so, but it doesn't acutally work that way.

Feel free to cite a source that shows that torture is objectively and categorically unreliable, that makes use of empirical testable data, and takes into account the numerous different types of torture and contexts.

Absurd. Your lack of access to the information does not mean that no one has it. Worse, it's not how science works. We don't say "well, someone could one day come up with proof it's reliable." We say "well, all the data we have available shows it to be an unreliable and ineffective source for information so that's how we'll treat till something demonstrates otherwise."

If science didn't work that way we would be acting like the jury is out on cheeseburgers spontaneously appearing out of black holes.

It's not for me to prove it doesn't work (though all the evidence presented thus far does support that), but for you to demonstrate that it does or even could. Not one thing has been presented that supports even the potential for torture being effective. That's certainty in as much as we can use such a term.

We say "well, all the data we have available shows it to be an unreliable and ineffective source for information so that's how we'll treat till something demonstrates otherwise."


What data? Again, if you have reliable data showing this (and not some cringe-worthy analogies that sociologists come up with), show it.


If science didn't work that way we would be acting like the jury is out on cheeseburgers spontaneously appearing out of black holes.

It's not for me to prove it doesn't work (though all the evidence presented thus far does support that), but for you to demonstrate that it does or even could. Not one thing has been presented that supports even the potential for torture being effective.

I'm not arguing that it does work. Nor am I arguing that it doesn't work. I'm arguing that it's impossible to make an absolute objective statement either way, because there is no reliable data.

I'm arguing that it's impossible to make an absolute objective statement either way, because there is no reliable data.
So what does your gut tell you?

So what does your gut tell you?

My gut tells me that it entirely depends on the context, and that generalising about torture in general is not possible. My gut also tells me that the way the US tortured terrorists was not an effective or reliable way to gather information.

My gut also tells me that the way the US tortured terrorists was not an effective or reliable way to gather information.

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm not surprised, just clarifying.

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing?


This is NSG, it's a discussion forum, so it's what you do. Additionally, I think it's important to maintain some level of neutral analysis of our ideas, even if you agree with them.

This is NSG, it's a discussion forum, so it's what you do. Additionally, I think it's important to maintain some level of neutral analysis of our ideas, even if you agree with them.

I think there's a crucial difference between arguing and discussing. Calling this forum one for discussion is often reaching. ;)

While its true there are many issues on which someone should play devil's advocate, avoid the whole groupthink thing, etc. I'm not sure torture is one of them. In response to the statement "Is torture wrong?" I don't think many people would respond no, and everyone outside of the Bush administration believes (correctly) that waterboarding is torture, so playing devil's advocate to something no one really disagrees on is kinda... pointless.

I'm not criticizing, just giving my opinion.

What data? Again, if you have reliable data showing this (and not some cringe-worthy analogies that sociologists come up with), show it.

Apparently, the cryptographic equipment I used in the military doesn't work. I can't show you any data demonstrating otherwise. Oh, wait, science doesn't allow for your premise based on your ignorance. Neither does debate.

I'm not arguing that it does work. Nor am I arguing that it doesn't work. I'm arguing that it's impossible to make an absolute objective statement either way, because there is no reliable data.

It's impossible to make an absolute objective statement about ANYTHING either way. However, it is possible to say, based on the fact that all the data leads to one conclusion, and also given that while I don't have all the data or even most of the data, that torture is certainly unreliable.

Now, you're welcome to demonstrate otherwise, but we looking at the data we do have, including the concensus of those who have more data than us, there is only one conclusion. In fact, the only one arguing against that conclusion is you.

PM admits that if it produces accurate information it's blind luck. PM isn't actually arguing against that. What is being disputed is whether something that is right less often than the magic 8-ball can be considered reliable? The obvious answer is no.

I think there's a crucial difference between arguing and discussing. Calling this forum one for discussion is often reaching. ;)

While its true there are many issues on which someone should play devil's advocate, avoid the whole groupthink thing, etc. I'm not sure torture is one of them. In response to the statement "Is torture wrong?" I don't think many people would respond no, and everyone outside of the Bush administration believes (correctly) that waterboarding is torture, so playing devil's advocate to something no one really disagrees on is kinda... pointless.

I'm not criticizing, just giving my opinion.

I think you're misunderstanding, I'm in no way arguing that torture is ever moral, not even in a 'devils-advocate' way. That stays wrong, regardless of how effective it is. I think many people however disagree with the idea that you can categorically generalise about whether torture is reliable or not in all contexts, including psychotic mongooses for instance.

I did misunderstand, thank you for that.

I would like to point out, however, that while many people disparage the human sciences, reliability is certainly not lacking.

Apparently, the cryptographic equipment I used in the military doesn't work. I can't show you any data demonstrating otherwise. Oh, wait, science doesn't allow for your premise based on your ignorance. Neither does debate.


You generalised about torture being categorically unreliable in (seemingly) all contexts. I'm saying that I find it difficult to believe that a reliable source could be used to conclude something like that (or conclude the opposite), hence I'm essentially asking you to source your claim.


It's impossible to make an absolute objective statement about ANYTHING either way.

Yet you still do.


However, it is possible to say, based on the fact that all the data leads to one conclusion, and also given that while I don't have all the data or even most of the data, that torture is certainly unreliable.


How can you state the former whilst admitting to the latter?


Now, you're welcome to demonstrate otherwise, but we looking at the data we do have, including the concensus of those who have more data than us, there is only one conclusion. In fact, the only one arguing against that conclusion is you.


It's great that you have all this alleged data to look at. I don't, I'm asking for this data. Really, it's a very simple request.

I think you're misunderstanding, I'm in no way arguing that torture is ever moral, not even in a 'devils-advocate' way. That stays wrong, regardless of how effective it is. I think many people however disagree with the idea that you can categorically generalise about whether torture is reliable or not in all contexts, including psychotic mongooses for instance.

You keep trying to add some kind of objective absolute to this like the we're talking about the existence of God. We aren't.

For human beings, we can only work off of evidence and make reasonable conclusions. A rational claim is written is often written as an absolute, because it makes it possible to test. This how science works as well. See, you write a testable assumption and you keep banging against it until it either holds up enough to be convincing or it fails.

When we test my claim against every bit of evidence you or anyone else can produce or has studied, it holds up. If you believe it doesn't, all it takes is a reliable pattern of working torture. We have plenty of data on torture from a variety of sources. We have tons of examples from failed regimes. We have lots of examples from this regime. We have plenty of data. Is it all the data? No, of course not.

I also haven't see all the data or even most of the data on flying humans, but I can say without fear of a rational rebuttal that people can't fly unassisted. Now, somewhere in the secret annals of our government there may be proof that people can, but it's not a rational rebuttal to my claim.

You generalised about torture being categorically unreliable in (seemingly) all contexts. I'm saying that I find it difficult to believe that a reliable source could be used to conclude something like that (or conclude the opposite), hence I'm essentially asking you to source your claim.

You've already demonstrated that unless you can see all the data you don't think it's enough.

Yet you still do.

Only if you don't understand how conclusions work. And you repeatedly prove you don't.

How can you state the former whilst admitting to the latter?

Dude, you just proved you haven't the first clue about science or rational thought. No one has all the data. Ever.

It's great that you have all this alleged data to look at. I don't, I'm asking for this data. Really, it's a very simple request.

No, you're claiming that the data already made available isn't good enough because there's more that you haven't seen. Which will always be true until the end of time.

I guess the jury is out on flying humans, too. What do you mean it's not? Provide me a study that proves categorically that human beings cannot fly unassisted.

For human beings, we can only work off of evidence and make reasonable conclusions. A rational claim is written is often written as an absolute, because it makes it possible to test. This how science works as well. See, you write a testable assumption and you keep banging against it until it either holds up enough to be convincing or it fails.


I know, that's very nice. I just want to be able to view all of this reliable evidence you keep talking about, such that you're able to make testable and rational assumptions from.


I also haven't see all the data or even most of the data on flying humans, but I can say without fear of a rational rebuttal that people can't fly unassisted. Now, somewhere in the secret annals of our government there may be proof that people can, but it's not a rational rebuttal to my claim.

I'm not saying that there maybe some secret evidence, to counter your claim, which is supposedly based on loads of evidence. I'm saying that I'm pretty sure there is no evidence either way, and that it's extremely difficult to produce such evidence.

You've already demonstrated that unless you can see all the data you don't think it's enough.


Not saying that at all. I'm saying unless you see any data, no testable hypothesis can be made, not all.


Dude, you just proved you haven't the first clue about science or rational thought. No one has all the data. Ever.


That's one of my main points! I don't think you're at all following what I'm saying.


No, you're claiming that the data already made available isn't good enough because there's more that you haven't seen.

Nope, completely wrong. Huge huge huge strawman, one of the biggest I've seen on NSG. Please read what I'm saying before you respond, thank you.

What data? Again, if you have reliable data showing this (and not some cringe-worthy analogies that sociologists come up with), show it.

I'm not arguing that it does work. Nor am I arguing that it doesn't work. I'm arguing that it's impossible to make an absolute objective statement either way, because there is no reliable data.

An argument from ignorance is hardly persuasive.

Actual experts on interrogation believe torture is not effective.

Some links: Does torture really work? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/). This is an article written by an actual expert.

Here is a lengthy (WARNING: 372 page pdf) report (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) by a group of experts, commissioned by the U.S. Intelligence Science Board and sponsored by by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity, that (1) is critical of the techniques used by interrogators since the United States was attacked by terrorists, and (2) finds there may be no value to coercive techniques -- more specifically, that there is no reliable evidence that coercive techniques work and there is copious evidence that coercive techniques are not effective.

Also, Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, clearly explains:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm), emphasis added)

I know, that's very nice. I just want to be able to view all of this reliable evidence you keep talking about, such that you're able to make testable and rational assumptions from.

You have viewed. You just didn't like it because you've claimed it's cherry-picked because you believe that they don't have all the information.

Unfortunately that demonstrates just how little you understand about how one tests a theory.
I'm not saying that there maybe some secret evidence, to counter your claim, which is supposedly based on loads of evidence. I'm saying that I'm pretty sure there is no evidence either way, and that it's extremely difficult to produce such evidence.

No, you aren't. You've admitted to evidence. You claimed that evidence wasn't enough because it's too limited. The problem is that assumes that because we don't have all the evidence that we can't reach a conclusion, which of course must hold true across the board, yes?

We have lots of historical evidence. You asked for a test that can't actually be created, but science doesn't work that way. It doesn't limit itself to what would be ideal, but it makes conclusions on the information we have.

I mean, technically, in order to test whether or not human beings can fly unassisted, we'd want to put together every combination of human DNA possible and every genetic expression possible and then toss them all off a building. Until you show me a study that's done so, I'm declaring the jury is still out.

An argument from ignorance is hardly persuasive.


I'm not 'arguing from ignorance' exactly, I'm arguing that you can't (or it's incredibly difficult to) make 'scientific hypotheses' about torture, precisely for reasons like how nobody is going to want to have torture tested on them, making it incredibly hard to test (testable hypotheses of course being central to the scientific discipline).


-snip-

Thankyou, I will review these sources and form an opinion of whether these count as reliable data or not. Jocabia, THIS is what you should do.

Not saying that at all. I'm saying unless you see any data, no testable hypothesis can be made, not all.

So you're claiming we literally have no data whatsoever? Really? So we don't have any historical examples of torture give mountains of bullshit? Hmmmm... that's odd. Here I thought that the thread was peppered with them.

That's one of my main points! I don't think you're at all following what I'm saying.

I know what you're saying. It's just stupid. Claiming that no one has all the evidence is just stating the obvious. If not having ALL the data stopped us from making conclusions, we'd never make any conclusions. None. Ever.

For example, I don't have ALL the possible evidence that you don't understand how to make a rational conclusions, but based on what I do have, the only rational conclusion is that you don't understand how it works.

Nope, completely wrong. Huge huge huge strawman, one of the biggest I've seen on NSG. Please read what I'm saying before you respond, thank you.

I did. You admitted there is data. Your problem is that the data available is historical and you feel this makes it cherry-picked. However, it is the data that is available.

Additionally, we have the analysis of experts who have access to additional data. We have the conclusions of the experts. We don't have all the data, but all the data we do have leads to only one conclusion. We don't refrain from making that conclusion waiting for some magical secret to arrive.

Hydesland wants a scientific study with empirical data showing that torture works/doesn't work.

Obviously this isn't going to happen in any country that you could actually believe the data from. So you two are arguing over absolutely nothing, which seems really silly doesn't it?

You have viewed. You just didn't like it because you've claimed it's cherry-picked because you believe that they don't have all the information.


Eh? How do you know all the stuff you've seen is the stuff I have seen? Also, not all the information, but very very little information (from what I've seen, again feel free to show me otherwise). But that's an insignificant part of what I'm saying, more importantly, torture cannot be tested, in cannot be replicated as an experiment, thus seriously hindering the ability to make 'scientific' hypotheses about it.


I mean, technically, in order to test whether or not human beings can fly unassisted, we'd want to put together every combination of human DNA possible and every genetic expression possible and then toss them all off a building. Until you show me a study that's done so, I'm declaring the jury is still out.

No, you can look at the DNA, look at the structure of our bodies, and prove that we are unable to fly.

I'm not 'arguing from ignorance' exactly, I'm arguing that you can't (or it's incredibly difficult to) make 'scientific hypotheses' about torture, precisely for reasons like how nobody is going to want to have torture tested on them, making it incredibly hard to test (testable hypotheses of course being central to the scientific discipline).



Thankyou, I will review these sources and form an opinion of whether these count as reliable data or not. Jocabia, THIS is what you should do.

Oh, nonsense. The problem is that you said such data isn't useful, previously.

You said the ONLY way to test it was to subject people to torture in a controlled experiment. You even bely your claims again in the above. That isn't what's required to make a rational conclusion. While you're arguing that historical examples aren't useful and that you don't trust the conclusions of experts who have more information, there is no point to give you conclusions based on historical examples and additional conclusions of experts you can't analyze.

Of course, when you're up against, you're going to grab the rope that TCT just threw you, but the fact is you were arguing from ignorance. Shall I quote you?

Eh? How do you know all the stuff you've seen is the stuff I have seen? Also, not all the information, but very very little information (from what I've seen, again feel free to show me otherwise). But that's an insignificant part of what I'm saying, more importantly, torture cannot be tested, in cannot be replicated as an experiment, thus seriously hindering the ability to make 'scientific' hypotheses about it.

If you have something that disputes the conclusions that you've admitted to seeing, if you have something that disputes the data you've admitted to seeing, provide it.

And, again, you prove you don't know how analysis works. Science doesn't only require practical experiments like you describe. If that were true, geology, anthropology, etc. wouldn't be scientific.

I suppose I can't make a scientific hypothesis about the mating habits of dinosaurs. I mean, it cannot be replicated as an experiment, right?

No, you can look at the DNA, look at the structure of our bodies, and prove that we are unable to fly.

Actually, we actually cannot do so yet. Plus, I declared that only one way of testing will work. Just like you did. Are you telling me there are mulitple ways to test a theory? No fucking way.

Hydesland wants a scientific study with empirical data showing that torture works/doesn't work.

Obviously this isn't going to happen in any country that you could actually believe the data from. So you two are arguing over absolutely nothing, which seems really silly doesn't it?

The problem is that Hyde doesn't understand analysis. He thinks that only practical experimentation is science. He's wrong.

The problem is that Hyde doesn't understand analysis. He thinks that only practical experimentation is science. He's wrong.

I'm a political scientist. I know he's wrong, but he's also not wrong. He wants empirical evidence before he concedes that torture is completely (in)effective. At least, as I understand it. I've been wrong before.

I'm a political scientist. I know he's wrong, but he's also not wrong. He wants empirical evidence before he concedes that torture is completely (in)effective. At least, as I understand it. I've been wrong before.

No, not empirical evidence. He has seen empirical evidence. He wants access to information he doesn't has and said so. He's aware of empirical evidence. He didn't like it.

More specifically, he would be willing to settle for an impossible experiment which is not the limit of empirical analysis, despite his claims.

No, not empirical evidence. He has seen empirical evidence. He wants access to information he doesn't has and said so. He's aware of empirical evidence. He didn't like it.

More specifically, he would be willing to settle for an impossible experiment which is not the limit of empirical analysis, despite his claims.

What exactly is empirical evidence where torture is concerned? I'm thinking EEG machines and truth serum and crazy science-y stuff like that.

This is such a stupid argument, utterly ridiculous, it's essentially quiblings about what constitutes 'empirical data' and what doesn't, even though ultimately those parameters are going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. Being fundamentalist about language will get you no where, it's a tool to express ideas, words don't have an inherent essence behind them.

Let me start again.

Can we test to see if torture works? No. That leaves us with looking at historical examples. What do historical examples tell us, they tell us that that in the set of situations witnessed, some types of torture in some types of contexts have or haven't worked, and other types of torture in other types of contexts have or haven't worked (note it could be all haven't or all have, I'm not specifying). That does not tell us that torture in general doesn't work, that's a fallacious deduction, you cannot say that torture has x and deduce that torture is x.

There is a lot more I have to say about this, but I don't think it's worth typing right now.

An American military tribunal even introduced the "Yamashita Standard," or "Command Responsibility," and executed General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the "Tiger of Malaya," for "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes."

Sort of an awfully high bar to set for the enemy and not for oneself.

My college thesis was on the IMTFE. It was pretty shoddily run.

I love America but we can be pretty arrogant :P. Dropping an atom bomb like it was a Hershey Bar and executing a guy for literally trying and failing to control his troops....

This is such a stupid argument, utterly ridiculous, it's essentially quiblings about what constitutes 'empirical data' and what doesn't, even though ultimately those parameters are going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. Being fundamentalist about language will get you know where, it's a tool to express ideas, words don't have an inherent essence behind them.

Let me start again.

Can we test to see if torture works? No. That leaves us with looking at historical examples. What do historical examples tell us, they tell us that that in the set of situations witnessed, some types of torture in some types of contexts have or haven't worked, and other types of torture in other types of contexts have or haven't worked (note it could be all haven't or all have, I'm not specifying). That does not tell us that torture in general doesn't work, that's a fallacious deduction, you cannot say that torture has x and deduce that torture is x.

There is a lot more I have to say about this, but I don't think it's worth typing right now.

I understand the point you are making, but it is a rather hollow one.

As Hume taught us, we can never make empirical judgments with full certainty.

But if the available evidence indicates torture tends not to be effective AND we know that torture has undesirable consequences, then the logical course is to not torture. Absolute certainty that torture is never more effective isn't needed.

EDIT: I fully recognize that you are not saying anyone should use torture. You are merely questioning Jocabia's assertions about torture. Nonetheless, I am saying that argument is moot.

The problem is that Hyde doesn't understand analysis. He thinks that only practical experimentation is science. He's wrong.

Also, I have major issues with your argument style. It's inherently hostile, and it's very inefficient, because you're constantly assuming peoples positions for them and attempting to address what you think that position is (which is humorously being wrong about 90% of the time), which causes lots of wastage constantly having to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-clarify what is actually being said, rather than addressing the specific arguments being made.

Also, I have major issues with your argument style. It's inherently hostile, and it's very inefficient, because you're constantly assuming peoples positions for them and attempting to address what you think that position is (which is humorously being wrong about 90% of the time), which causes lots of wastage constantly having to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-clarify what is actually being said, rather than addressing the specific arguments being made.


its time to let it go.

jocabia is unable to do it so you have to.

thank you in advance.

think about it.

But if the available evidence indicates torture tends not to be effective AND we know that torture has undesirable consequences, then the logical course is to not torture.

I fully agree, the logical and rational course of action is not to torture based on what we've seen. But I'm not going to pretend that it's a position based on mounds of irrefutable evidence, it's based on select historical tendencies. Saying that 'torture just does not work for certain' is completely missing the point.

Edit: which is why it's more important to focus on the moral reasons to be against torture.

I fully agree, the logical and rational course of option is not to torture based on what we've seen. But I'm not going to pretend that it's a position based on mounds of irrefutable evidence, it's based on select historical tendencies. Saying that 'torture just does not work for certain' is completely missing the point.

Your argument implies there are other historical tendencies which would indicate torture is effective. Could you point to these, please?

Otherwise, faced with a pile of evidence that indicates X and no evidence that indicates not-X, X is an unrefuted (even if theoretically refutable) conclusion.

Otherwise, faced with a pile of evidence that indicates X and no evidence that indicates not-X, X is an unrefuted (even if theoretically refutable) conclusion.

Yes, but an unrefuted conclusion is overrated, it's not a certainty, and one unrefuted conclusion might be a lot more compelling than another.

Also, when we talk of historical data, we seem to be talking about torture as if it's one simple procedure, but it isn't. It's a huge number of different procedures and contexts. It's not the same as simply having an experiment, repeating it, again and again and again and showing that the same thing happens each time (proof by exhaustion). With each historical piece of evidence (i.e. repetition of the experiment), there are entirely different factors and contexts to be considered each time. Saying something has not been refuted is not enough.

And doesn't simple models show that at least one particular type of torture is probably going to work on at least a few people? For instance, a constant premise about torture is that the people being tortured are simply going to say what the torturers want to hear. But what about a situation where that premise is impossible, or rather, it's impossible for the person to say what the torturer wants to hear without it being true itself? For instance, a security code, which can instantly be verified (access denied or not). In this case, giving a wrong answer just causes further torture, so there is a significant threat if the agent lies. The agent who is being tortured thus has three options: he doesn't tell, he lies, or he tells. The agent being tortured is going to have to make a choice eventually, either he chooses to get continually tortured, or he gives information that is verified to be correct. Now I think it is rational to assume that not everyone has infinite thresholds and are always going to endure further intense suffering so they don't break their principles. At least someone is going to make the choice (simple cost benefit analysis) that it's worth breaking your principles to end the suffering. Now, if you believe that torture categorically doesn't work (not the same as saying torture camps don't work or are unreliable, and obviously no country practices this kind of torture really as far as I'm aware), you are forced to believe that everybody values the importance of their principles above being endlessly tortured.

And doesn't simple models show that at least one particular type of torture is probably going to work on at least a few people? For instance, a constant premise about torture is that the people being tortured are simply going to say what the torturers want to hear. But what about a situation where that premise is impossible, or rather, it's impossible for the person to say what the torturer wants to hear without it being true itself? For instance, a security code, which can instantly be verified (access denied or not). In this case, giving a wrong answer just causes further torture, so there is a significant threat if the agent lies. The agent who is being tortured thus has three options: he doesn't tell, he lies, or he tells. The agent being tortured is going to have to make a choice eventually, either he chooses to get continually tortured, or he gives information that is verified to be correct. Now I think it is rational to assume that not everyone has infinite thresholds and are always going to endure further intense suffering so they don't break their principles. At least someone is going to make the choice (simple cost benefit analysis) that it's worth breaking your principles to end the suffering. Now, if you believe that torture categorically doesn't work (not the same as saying torture camps don't work or are unreliable, and obviously no country practices this kind of torture really as far as I'm aware), you are forced to believe that everybody values the importance of their principles above being endlessly tortured.

And there is nuclear bomb and it's counting down and just when it hits one, he gives up the number and the world is saved.

Since you've come up with a hypothetical scenario where it would be productive, do you have an example of it actually happening?

Again, as has been pointed out to you, the theory is unrefuted. That you can think of unproven scenario where it might work doesn't refute a theory and that's the point.

As far as your dislike for my argument style, I'm not going for popularity. I'll settle for being correct. When you've got more than a scenario you have no evidence to support, then I'll be happy to accept that I'm wrong. Let me know when you do.

Yes, but an unrefuted conclusion is overrated, it's not a certainty, and one unrefuted conclusion might be a lot more compelling than another.

You keep getting caught up in this absolute truth version of certain. Unrefuted is the best we ever get.

So you at one point claimed there was no evidence (despite admitting to several forms of evidence you're familiar with). You're now admitting there is actually evidence again. Now being unrefuted isn't good enough for you.

Precisely what, other than requiring an impossible experiment, would you consider convincing evidence? Propose a reasonable experiment for demonstrating torture is useful or not?

Also, I have major issues with your argument style. It's inherently hostile, and it's very inefficient, because you're constantly assuming peoples positions for them and attempting to address what you think that position is (which is humorously being wrong about 90% of the time), which causes lots of wastage constantly having to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-clarify what is actually being said, rather than addressing the specific arguments being made.

This is an interesting complaint, in context. 'Torture' being, of course, inherently hostile, very inefficient, causes lots of wastage having to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-clarify... etc.

See the irony?

Since you've come up with a hypothetical scenario where it would be productive, do you have an example of it actually happening?


I can think of numerous examples of bank robbers forcing someone to open a safe.


Again, as has been pointed out to you, the theory is unrefuted.

Assuming it's 'unrefuted', the fact that it's 'unrefuted' tells me very little.


That you can think of unproven scenario where it might work doesn't refute a theory and that's the point.


But it does mean that, if you are going to believe that torture categorically never works, you're going to have to make some very extreme assumptions. Unless, by torture, you're actually being very specific about the type of torture (as in, the torture used by the US and other governments).


As far as your dislike for my argument style, I'm not going for popularity. I'll settle for being correct. When you've got more than a scenario you have no evidence to support, then I'll be happy to accept that I'm wrong. Let me know when you do.

You don't actually argue though. You haven't made anything resembling an argument in this thread. You just assert, you assert that 'all the data ('data', of course, being a giant weasel word that can mean anything) supports what I say' etc... Yet you haven't provided a single source, or any data whatsoever, even after being asked.

You keep getting caught up in this absolute truth version of certain. Unrefuted is the best we ever get.


But unrefuted is not in it self inherently that compelling, it's actually a very vague word. The idea that my 3 day old car never breaks down is unrefuted, because in the last 3 days it hasn't broken down, that however doesn't make the idea any more compelling.


So you at one point claimed there was no evidence (despite admitting to several forms of evidence you're familiar with). You're now admitting there is actually evidence again. Now being unrefuted isn't good enough for you.


I said there was no empirical evidence, historical anecdotes are not empirical evidence.


Precisely what, other than requiring an impossible experiment, would you consider convincing evidence? Propose a reasonable experiment for demonstrating torture is useful or not?

Why? Any experiment I propose will never happen as you acknowledge.

But unrefuted is not in it self inherently that compelling, it's actually a very vague word. The idea that my 3 day old car never breaks down is unrefuted, because in the last 3 days it hasn't broken down, that however doesn't make the idea any more compelling.

Huh, I take it torture is the three-day old car. Let's see since the beginning of man governments and people have been trying to justify torture unsuccessfully, and that's your three-day old car. Interesting analogy. Not resembling reality, but, hey, why worry about reality, right?


I said there was no empirical evidence, historical anecdotes are not empirical evidence.

Not anecdotes, unless you really are arguing from ignorance. There is lots of available historical information if you're willing to do even a modicum of research.

Regardless, you've been provided with a fairly adequate source and you're still on with this nonsense. I think I made the point that you don't actually accept evidence. Your reply at one point acted as if I should be impressed by TCT's response. It's interesting that you've demonstrated my point by continuing on the exact same line in spite of the evidence.

Why? Any experiment I propose will never happen as you acknowledge.

Yes, I do acknowledge that you don't actually understand science. How do you propose we determine the mating habits of dinosaurs? Same rules, yeah?

I can think of numerous examples of bank robbers forcing someone to open a safe.

You can? Then provide them. Provide an example of a bank robber torturing someone into opening a safe. Not threatening. Not scaring. Torturing. I'll wait.

You will have, in fact, proven that when there is a safe or password that torture is effective and I'd be wrong. I'm willing to admit it. Provide your evidence.

As far as me not providing evidence, you've admitted just a post later that your requirement for evidence is an experiment that is impossible. That you think the only way to actually support a theory adequately is with that type of experimentation demonstrates the futility. When you tell me a type of evidence that's actually rational and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the rational requirements for a conclusion, I would be happy to provide it.

I really don't see why torturing terrorists is that bad. They dont abide by IL, so I think we should give them a taste of their own medicine. terrorists execute our people they capture, so we should be able to torture their guys and kkill them if we wanted to.

I really don't see why torturing terrorists is that bad. They dont abide by IL, so I think we should give them a taste of their own medicine. terrorists execute our people they capture, so we should be able to torture their guys and kkill them if we wanted to.

Should we rape rapists, too? Just curious.

A response to what sounds like your moral argument... would be that the reason 'they' are 'bad' and 'we' are 'good' is that 'they' do the 'bad' stuff and 'we' do the 'good' stuff.

A response based more objectively... would be that torture is not an efficient or reliable way to obtain data.

Should we rape rapists, too? Just curious.

A response to what sounds like your moral argument... would be that the reason 'they' are 'bad' and 'we' are 'good' is that 'they' do the 'bad' stuff and 'we' do the 'good' stuff.

A response based more objectively... would be that torture is not an efficient or reliable way to obtain data.

i wouldn't go raping raping, unless they were smoking hot (might just see if the punishment is good enough ;) )

They are 'Bad' because they did the 'Bad' things first. We are 'Good' because we kicked their asses and gave them a piece of their own medicine.

Well what would you have us do? Ask nicly and give them some hugs and kisses with chocolates while we're at it?

i wouldn't go raping raping, unless they were smoking hot (might just see if the punishment is good enough ;) )

They are 'Bad' because they did the 'Bad' things first. We are 'Good' because we kicked their asses and gave them a piece of their own medicine.

Well what would you have us do? Ask nicly and give them some hugs and kisses with chocolates while we're at it?

But by torturing them, all we've done is make ourselves more like them. The only difference is who did it first.

To truly be a good person, you must do good things and be above the bad things. Torturing bad people is a bad thing, because torture is bad.

Therefore, you are not good if you torture.

They are 'Bad' because they did the 'Bad' things first.


So, order of precedence is the limiting factor?

I disagree. I think that being 'bad' would be contingent on.. well, BEING 'bad'... not just not being the first.


We are 'Good' because we kicked their asses and gave them a piece of their own medicine.


Surely, we are 'good' because we're not blowing up civilians to institute terror (theoretically), or harming the innocent and helpless (theoretically), or carrying out the atrocities (theoretically) that the 'bad' people do?


Well what would you have us do? Ask nicly and give them some hugs and kisses with chocolates while we're at it?

And if that worked?

Huh, I take it torture is the three-day old car.

You just don't get it do you, you really don't. I don't think I'm going to debate with you this time, you don't even attempt to understand what people are trying to say.

You just don't get it do you, you really don't. I don't think I'm going to debate with you this time, you don't even attempt to understand what people are trying to say.

So let's see... you tried an argument from ignorance before getting slapped down by several people. Then you tried ad hominem before getting slapped down from several people.

Now you're bailing because I pointed out your analogy is silly. Do you really think this fools anyone?

You claimed there are examples that prove me wrong. I admitted that if they exist they prove me wrong. Unlike you, I didn't present some impossible challenge. I've shown you a clear and easy path to prove me wrong if you're telling the truth. Now go ahead.

well, if someone killed your kid, thenwouldn't you want to kill them? Vengence only happens because of a first strike, the toture and executionof Americans, and in retaliation, we toture (quite humanitarianly compared to them) and dont execute them, and thats only when they dont tell us after we ask them.

Sometimes their is just bad, appropriate, and useless. gotta choose one.

that would look very funny.

well, if someone killed your kid, thenwouldn't you want to kill them? Vengence only happens because of a first strike, the toture and executionof Americans, and in retaliation, we toture (quite humanitarianly compared to them) and dont execute them, and thats only when they dont tell us after we ask them.

Sometimes their is just bad, appropriate, and useless. gotta choose one.

that would look very funny.

I'll go with appropriate. However, to me appropriate includes analyzing whether a response is effective. Raping rapists isn't. Many of them, in fact, have been raped. Torture also isn't.

Since when does appropriate mean emotional and wasteful?

So let's see... you tried an argument from ignorance

Complete utter bullshit.


before getting slapped down by several people.

Complete utter bullshit.


Then you tried ad homine

Complete utter bullshit.

m before getting slapped down from several people.
[/QUOTE]

Complete utter bullshit.


Now you're bailing because I pointed out your analogy is silly.

Complete utter bullshit.

Since you're not making anything resembling an argument here, I'm not going to either, I'm just going to 'say it like it is', which is the fact that everything you say is unbelievably wrong or completely missing the point.


I didn't present some impossible challenge.

This is bullshit, your challenge is impossible. You said 'without threatening someone', the whole point of torture is the threat of further torture is an incentive to comply.

well, if someone killed your kid, thenwouldn't you want to kill them?


I absolutely would want to. That doesn't mean I would do it, though.


Vengence only happens because of a first strike, the toture and executionof Americans, and in retaliation,


So... how does that reconcile with the fact that there have been a wealth of these 'instances' where people were just picked up 'in theatre', and there have been no charges pressed, etc - so we don't know they people we're torturing are guilty of ANYTHING?


...we toture (quite humanitarianly


Humane torture?


...compared to them) and dont execute them, and thats only when they dont tell us after we ask them.


Despite the fact that 'just asking them' in the right fashions is more productive, more reliable... and doesn't put us in breach of treaties where we've pledged NOT to torture?


that would look very funny.

Doesn't answer the question.

See, Hyde, this is the part where you swear at the computer while you realize you claimed that evidence exists that does not actually exist. This is the part where you pretend like there is some other problem rather than simply admit you cannot provide that evidence.

And this is the part where everyone looking on rightly sees your antics for what they are. See, we've seen this plenty of times before. You're not the first to tuck tail when they cornered themselves.

I'll go with appropriate. However, to me appropriate includes analyzing whether a response is effective. Raping rapists isn't. Many of them, in fact, have been raped. Torture also isn't.

Since when does appropriate mean emotional and wasteful?

That's what it looks like. An 'emotion' response.

Complete utter bullshit.

Complete utter bullshit.

Complete utter bullshit.

Complete utter bullshit.

Complete utter bullshit.

Since you're not making anything resembling an argument here, I'm not going to either, I'm just going to 'say it like it is', which is the fact that everything you say is unbelievably wrong or completely missing the point.

This is bullshit, your challenge is impossible. You said 'without threatening someone', the whole point of torture is the threat of further torture is an incentive to comply.

Hehe, so you're going to cling to that, eh?

I'll clarify. I don't mean without ever threatening them. I meant that a threat doesn't count. Show an example where someone was ACTUALLY tortured. Not JUST threatened, but actually tortured. Still impossible?

I'll ignore for the moment that I didn't say "without threating someone", but rather "not threatening" which of course isn't the same thing.

buck fush

Vengence only happens because of a first strike
What happens after the vengeance for the vengeance for the vengeance... has gone on so long that nobody really remembers the first strike anymore, but is pretty sure it was the other side that started it? See: every thread about Israel/Palestine.

See, Hyde, this is the part where you swear at the computer while you realize you claimed that evidence exists that does not actually exist. This is the part where you pretend like there is some other problem rather than simply admit you cannot provide that evidence.

And this is the part where everyone looking on rightly sees your antics for what they are. See, we've seen this plenty of times before. You're not the first to tuck tail when they cornered themselves.

Actually, this is the part where you crudely and with such immense bias 'analyse' the 'debate' so far. Like you claim I have, I've already told you how you've asked for the impossible. And the evidence for that part is completely unimportant and pretty much completely irrelevant to my overall argument anyway (it was just an additional post, not even aimed at you), that you choose now to exclusively focus on that part can say a lot.

That's what it looks like. An 'emotion' response.

I have to say I'm enjoying very much the argument at this point. You?

One poster has us raping rapists as long as the rapists are hot and the other is claiming that asking someone to provide the actual specifics of an example, they proposed and I've admitted proves them them right, is impossible.

You gotta love that. I literally laughed out loud.

I'll clarify. I don't mean without ever threatening them. I meant that a threat doesn't count. Show an example where someone was ACTUALLY tortured. Not JUST threatened, but actually tortured. Still impossible?


I'd say pointing a gun to someone's head is immense psychological torture, wouldn't you?

Actually, this is the part where you crudely and with such immense bias 'analyse' the 'debate' so far. Like you claim I have, I've already told you how you've asked for the impossible. And the evidence for that part is completely unimportant and pretty much completely irrelevant to my overall argument anyway (it was just an additional post, not even aimed at you), that you choose now to exclusively focus on that part can say a lot.

The evidence would prove me wrong. I've openly admitted as much. How is that irrelevant?

Seriously, man, do you actually think this isn't completely transparent?

The evidence would prove me wrong. I've openly admitted as much. How is that irrelevant?


It wouldn't 'prove you wrong', since your position is unfalsifiable. You're constantly just going to redefine torture and add qualifications, whatever I provide, I know it.

I'd say pointing a gun to someone's head is immense psychological torture, wouldn't you?

And the squirming continues. Then torture really is legal since a cop can legally put a gun to someone's head.

I've actually been tortured by the cops, in fact. You know any good lawyers?

I take you don't have a real example.

And the squirming continues. Then torture really is legal since a cop can legally put a gun to someone's head.

I've actually been tortured by the cops, in fact. You know any good lawyers?

I take you don't have a real example.

And there we have it. You don't categorically believe that torture doesn't work. You believe that only certain types of torture don't work, not that it doesn't work in any context whatsoever.

It wouldn't 'prove you wrong', since your position is unfalsifiable. You're constantly just going to redefine torture and add qualifications, whatever I provide, I know it.

Pardon me? I think you don't understand the term. The purpose of speaking in an absolute is that it is falsifiable. My claim is absolutely so. I said that torture never works. One example of it working falsifies.

As for redefining torture, you just redefined it to include any time one's life is in a very real danger and you're complaining?

And there we have it. You don't categorically believe that torture doesn't work. You believe that only certain types of torture don't work, not that it doesn't work in any context whatsoever.

And after three types of fallacies fail, you resort to equivocation.

I ask you in all seriousness, did a cop who pulls a gun on a suspect torture them? Even if one were to accept that definition, is it reasonable to argue that's the definition of torture we were working with?

As far as certain types of torture, no, that's not what I said. I don't count threats as torture, since it would make nearly everyone a victim of torture at some point and would make you're earlier claims about limited evidence ridiculous.

Pardon me? I think you don't understand the term. The purpose of speaking in an absolute is that it is falsifiable. My claim is absolutely so. I said that torture never works. One example of it working falsifies.

As for redefining torture, you just redefined it to include any time one's life is in a very real danger and you're complaining?

I define torture as making someone go through suffering (whether psychological or not) to force people to comply.

I have to say I'm enjoying very much the argument at this point. You?

One poster has us raping rapists as long as the rapists are hot and the other is claiming that asking someone to provide the actual specifics of an example, they proposed and I've admitted proves them them right, is impossible.

You gotta love that. I literally laughed out loud.

The 'raping rapists' one was a curve-ball, I'll admit. The other argument has me thoroughly confused. I'm pretty sure we had evidence presented in this very thread that showed how ineffective and unreliable torture is...

...so that argument has to come down to how you define 'work' in 'does torture work' to have any semblence of meaning. For me.

Our own experts suggest it doesn't work in isolation, and really needs to be confirmed with.. well, the other methods that are more effective and productive. Which makes the whole 'torture' part pointless.

Either I'm missing the point by a HUGE margin... or that argument was actually already resolved pages and pages ago.

So... some laughing... more being confused.

About par for the course for me, really.

And after three types of fallacies fail, you resort to equivocation.

I ask you in all seriousness, did a cop who pulls a gun on a suspect torture them?

Depending on the context (as in the way the cop uses the gun on the criminal causes psychological suffering), you could actually call it that. But if the cop were to use some weird contraption that causes incredible pain if the person doesn't comply, that would work just as well. In fact, a tazer is often defined as torture by some, yet there are many examples of that working.


Even if one were to accept that definition, is it reasonable to argue that's the definition of torture we were working with?

Again, if you're going to claim that torture never works as a categorical absolute, that means it's not going to work whatever the context.

I define torture as making someone go through suffering (whether psychological or not) to force people to comply.

So it is torture for a cop to point a gun at someone to force them to comply with an order to put their hands behind their head and get on the ground, yeah?

So it is torture for a cop to point a gun at someone to force them to comply with an order to put their hands behind their head and get on the ground, yeah?

Read above.

Depending on the context (as in the way the cop uses the gun on the criminal causes psychological suffering), you could actually call it that. But if the cop were to use some weird contraption that causes incredible pain if the person doesn't comply, that would work just as well. In fact, a tazer is often defined as torture by some, yet there are many examples of that working.

Again, if you're going to claim that torture never works as a categorical absolute, that means it's not going to work whatever the context.

It doesn't mean you get to redefine the word. I can absolutely claim that a chick is a baby bird, but you can't say that I'm wrong because a chick can refer to a girl.

Your definition is not the definition we're working with and you know it. No one here was including being threatened with a gun, not even you.

Unless, you're now claiming that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not threatening someone with a gun is effective. Are you?

It doesn't mean you get to redefine the word. I can absolutely claim that a chick is a baby bird, but you can't say that I'm wrong because a chick can refer to a girl.

Your definition is not the definition we're working with and you know it. No one here was including being threatened with a gun, not even you.


How exactly do you define torture anyway?


Unless, you're now claiming that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not threatening someone with a gun is effective. Are you?

There can be evidence of that, because it's one specific type of torture (assume it is for sake of argument) which is repeated and observed hundreds of times a day, not a categorical statement about all torture in general.

Read above.

So then since you haven't redefined torture in a completely ridiculous way, of course, then when you said there is no data on which to base a conclusion about data, you were saying we have no data on which to conclude that pointing a gun at someone reliably coerces them to comply, yeah?

You were honestly claiming we can't analyze whether threats of force work?

So then since you haven't redefined torture in a completely ridiculous way, of course, then when you said there is no data on which to base a conclusion about data, you were saying we have no data on which to conclude that pointing a gun at someone reliably coerces them to comply, yeah?


No, read above.

Jocabia, if I had a plastic gun, but told someone that it was real and that I was going to kill him with it, and I kept on waving it at him and making it seem like I'm about to, reducing him to tears, would you call that psychological torture?

Again, if you're going to claim that torture never works as a categorical absolute, that means it's not going to work whatever the context.

My we've set the goalposts rather high and narrow (and somewhat mobile), now, haven't we?

You are saying categorically that no one can prove that torture never works as a categorical absolute. Cute. What is the point of discussing it then?

Regardless, one need not prove "a categorical absolute" about torture in order to conclude that torture (1) is generally not as effective as other methods of interrogation and (2) usually does not "work." Thus, when evaluating whether or not to torture, the starting place should be from the perspective that torture isn't likely to work.

That is a relevant moral consideration, especially from a consequential viewpoint. Now, are there other reasons why one should not torture regardless of whether or not it works? Of course.

But proponents of torture have an additional hill to climb in that they cannot assume torture will be effective.

My we've set the goalposts rather high and narrow (and somewhat mobile), now, haven't we?

You are saying categorically that no one can prove that torture never works as a categorical absolute. Cute. What is the point of discussing it then?


Again, I agree with what you say below, but Jocabia has specifically said that the idea that torture doesn't work is an absolute fact.

How exactly do you define torture anyway?

I define torture as submitting a person to extreme mental or physical anguish with the purpose of compliance or punishment.

Extreme obviously is subjective, but it's pretty obvious that extreme requires it to be pretty far down the spectrum. If a simple threat of force makes it torture then we're talking about whether or not threatening to shoot a burgler can get them to leave or whether pinching my sister is torturing her into stopping touching me. In fact, by your ridiculous definition many types of self-defense are torture.

There can be evidence of that, because it's one specific type of torture (assume it is for sake of argument) which is repeated and observed hundreds of times a day, not a categorical statement about all torture in general.

Which isn't the same as no evidence, is it? You claimed there was no evidence.

Meanwhile, as far as your claim that I was talking about all types of torture including silly watered down versions that includes nearly every remote type of pain no matter the intensity, that's you're equivocation.

As I said, are you seriously of the impression that anyone isn't just laughing at this point? I mean, come on. You went from claiming that there is no evidence to work from to giving very clear examples of what you now define as torture working. That would mean, in fact, there are clear examples of me being wrong, if we'd actually been working with such a silly definition. If you believed it, why did you claim there was no way to prove me wrong?

Jocabia, if I had a plastic gun, but told someone that it was real and that I was going to kill him with it, and I kept on waving it at him and making it seem like I'm about to, reducing him to tears, would you call that psychological torture?

No, I wouldn't. I don't redefine everything cruel as torture. I think it's pretty obvious we weren't talking about waving plastic guns.

The level at which you're trying to make this equivocation not only makes the argument silly, but demonstrates your earlier claims were bullshit. You didn't claim there was data about certain types of torture that is conclusive. You said there is no reliable data whatsoever.

If you redefine torture in the silly way you're trying, you could have demonstrated I was wrong from jump. Let me guess, you didn't know you defined torture that way when you started, huh?

Again, I agree with what you say below, but Jocabia has specifically said that the idea that torture doesn't work is an absolute fact.

You keep trying to pull that nonsense. I, in fact, said that I stated an absolute supported by the evidence. The only one who pulled this nonsense about this overarching absolute was you. In fact, when you brought it up I clearly stated that I wasn't claiming the kind of absolute that can't be claimed about anything, ever.

Shall I quote myself?

You have been equivocating for a while now. Are you really this desperate?

I define torture as submitting a person to extreme mental or physical anguish with the purpose of compliance or punishment.


I've complied to with school bullies before, because I didn't want 'extreme physical anguish', would that be an example of torture working?


Extreme obviously is subjective, but it's pretty obvious that extreme requires it to be pretty far down the spectrum. If a simple threat of force makes it torture then we're talking about whether or not threatening to shoot a burgler can get them to leave or whether pinching my sister is torturing her into stopping touching me. In fact, by your ridiculous definition many types of self-defense are torture.


The point is, if a simple threat can work, than why not a threat of extreme anguish?


Which isn't the same as no evidence, is it? You claimed there was no evidence.


Regarding your other statement, true I've contradicted myself. Before I didn't think there was any evidence that models every singly type of possible torture which proves that every single type of possible torture doesn't work (or does). Now however, when I've thought about it, if you're really going to claim that as an absolute, then anything that fits into the definition of torture now doesn't work, even stuff that can be observed and is repeated hundreds of times a day.

You keep trying to pull that nonsense. I, in fact, said that I stated an absolute supported by the evidence.

In my eyes, an absolute is an absolute, whether it is supported by evidence or not. How exactly do you define an absolute?

I've complied to with school bullies before, because I didn't want 'extreme physical anguish', would that be an example of torture working?

Again, while it's a bit of a subjective term, it's pretty clear we're not talking about the schoolyard fights. Again, when you enter an argument and you redefine the terms, it's called equivocation. It's a fallacy for a reason.

You aren't actually making an argument when you claim that someone can't actually support their claim provided it means something completely different from what it actually meant in context.

The point is, if a simple threat can work, than why not a threat of extreme anguish?

Because the example we're speaking to is the case where those were ineffective. That's precisely the point. Are you claiming we are actually arguing about whether or not torture is effective in cases where a person gives up all their information before they're tortured?

Regarding your other statement, true I've contradicted myself. Before I didn't think there was any evidence that models every singly type of possible torture which proves that every single type of possible torture doesn't work (or does). Now however, when I've thought about it, if you're really going to claim that as an absolute, then anything that fits into the definition of torture now doesn't work, even stuff that can be observed and is repeated hundreds of times a day.

Amusing. Is this really what you're going with?

You're going to pretend like we can't all see that the contradiction is that you suddenly redefined the terms? Who do you possibly think is fooled by this? Seriously, name someone.

In my eyes, an absolute is an absolute, whether it is supported by evidence or not. How exactly do you define an absolute?

It depends on usage. I made it clear that I was talking about making a rational and scientific conclusion. I pointed out several times that it is stated as an absolute to make it falsifiable. (Laughably, you claimed that "Torture never works" is not falsifiable, but we'll ignore the wild ignorance of that claim for the moment.) You've long since conceded this meaning by replying in that context.

I'm not 'arguing from ignorance' exactly, I'm arguing that you can't (or it's incredibly difficult to) make 'scientific hypotheses' about torture, precisely for reasons like how nobody is going to want to have torture tested on them, making it incredibly hard to test (testable hypotheses of course being central to the scientific discipline).

Shall I give additional examples of both you and I talking about scientific and rational hypotheses?

Again, while it's a bit of a subjective term, it's pretty clear we're not talking about the schoolyard fights. Again, when you enter an argument and you redefine the terms, it's called equivocation. It's a fallacy for a reason.


Do you think it would have made any difference if the bullies threatened me with physical anguish one hundred times greater? A thousand times greater?


Because the example we're speaking to is the case where those were ineffective. That's precisely the point.


If you're going to claim it as an absolute, it means it wont work in any possible example.


Amusing. Is this really what you're going with?

You're going to pretend like we can't all see that the contradiction is that you suddenly redefined the terms? Who do you possibly think is fooled by this? Seriously, name someone.

I extended my thinking to beyond governmental torture camps and criminal organisations, that doesn't mean I redefined the word.

My we've set the goalposts rather high and narrow (and somewhat mobile), now, haven't we?

You are saying categorically that no one can prove that torture never works as a categorical absolute. Cute. What is the point of discussing it then?

Regardless, one need not prove "a categorical absolute" about torture in order to conclude that torture (1) is generally not as effective as other methods of interrogation and (2) usually does not "work." Thus, when evaluating whether or not to torture, the starting place should be from the perspective that torture isn't likely to work.

That is a relevant moral consideration, especially from a consequential viewpoint. Now, are there other reasons why one should not torture regardless of whether or not it works? Of course.

But proponents of torture have an additional hill to climb in that they cannot assume torture will be effective.

I am extremely anguished by your post and concede, thus proving myself wrong. Who knew the argument could be settled so easily?

It depends on usage. I made it clear that I was talking about making a rational and scientific conclusion.

Yes, and your conclusion was seemingly that it never works, as an absolute.


(Laughably, you claimed that "Torture never works" is not falsifiable, but we'll ignore the wild ignorance of that claim for the moment.)

You're not familiar with the idea of 'the death of a thousand qualifications' are you?

Do you think it would have made any difference if the bullies threatened me with physical anguish one hundred times greater? A thousand times greater?

I think we're not talking about situations where you're already offered up everything they want. Incidentally, I suspect that a person who is totally cooperative would give up the same information under torture. No one is talking about that ludicrous scenario. In fact, there is pretty much no definition of "effective" or "works" that includes using torture to accomplish something that you have already accomplished.

If you're going to claim it as an absolute, it means it wont work in any possible example.

The problem the is the example is that the example has to work under the umbrella of the statement I actually made. Not some redefinition of that statement.

I extended my thinking to beyond governmental torture camps and criminal organisations, that doesn't mean I redefined the word.

No, it's the fact that you've extended it to things that wouldn't fall under the original usage that counts as redefining. I'm not claiming you changed the English definition anymore than you changed the English definition in my "chick" example, but that doesn't mean you haven't equivocated.

Yes, and your conclusion was seemingly that it never works, as an absolute.

Yes, because stating it as an absolute makes it falsifiable. You keep rewording it to infer that we're talking about something more than a rational conclusion based on evidence.

You're not familiar with the idea of 'the death of a thousand qualifications' are you?

Yes, which you're also redefining to mean "he's qualifying his statement to mean what it would naturally mean in the context of its usage". Unfortunately, stating a falsifiable hypothesis doesn't mean you can put it in any context and test it. It means you have to test the actual hypothesis made.

TCT has point out several of your fallacies. I've pointed out several others. You have any refutation besides "that's utter bullshit"?

I think we're not talking about situations where you're already offered up everything they want.

Nor have I, I haven't given the bullies my lunch money yet. They've put me through extreme physical anguish to show me what will continually happen to me if I don't give them my money.


No, it's the fact that you've extended it to things that wouldn't fall under the original usage that counts as redefining. I'm not claiming you changed the English definition anymore than you changed the English definition in my "chick" example, but that doesn't mean you haven't equivocated.

If you don't like my examples, I could easily come up with another one which is more extreme.

Hey, TCT, in the link you provided, they didn't specifically say they don't include bullies on the playground threatening to beat you up. Clearly they were wrong to make the claim they made, huh?

Nor have I, I haven't given the bullies my lunch money yet. They've put me through extreme physical anguish to show me what will continually happen to me if I don't give them my money.

Again, while "extreme" is subjective, it doesn't mean that everything you use hyperbole with counts. I was quite clear that I wasn't referencing such things. You really don't know what equivocation means, do you?

If you don't like my examples, I could easily come up with another one which is more extreme.

Can you come up with one that actually includes the actual working definition of the argument we were having when you arrived? How about something actually comparable to waterboarding. It doesn't have to be waterboarding since we've all admitted that there is not only one type of turture, but it DOES have to be something that would fall under the definition of torture rational people would be referencing when discussing whether the US is torturing prisoners.

I hold that when you say extreme, you mean that it's really exhiliarating and exciting. I mean, contextual definitions don't matter, right? There's no such thing as equivocation.

Yes, because stating it as an absolute makes it falsifiable. You keep rewording it to infer that we're talking about something more than a rational conclusion based on evidence.


You're missing the point. Your 'rational conclusion' is that it never works. If you say it never works, that means it doesn't work in any example I provide.


Unfortunately, stating a falsifiable hypothesis doesn't mean you can put it in any context and test it.

YES, it DOES mean that with YOUR 'hypothesis', because your hypothesis is that it DOESN'T work, not that it 'usually doesn't work'.


TCT has point out several of your fallacies.

No he hasn't, not at all, he's said that the point I'm trying to argue is redundant and irrelevant. Amusingly, if I were to be as pedantic as you, I could say he even disagrees with you, because he specifically says that torture 'usually is ineffective', not 'doesn't work'.

Again, while "extreme" is subjective, it doesn't mean that everything you use hyperbole with counts. I was quite clear that I wasn't referencing such things. You really don't know what equivocation means, do you?


This is not representing something that happened to me any more. This is an analogy now, when I say extreme physical anguish, I mean it. They have pliers and knives and hammers and stuff, they cut off my left testicle lets say.


Can you come up with one that actually includes the actual working definition of the argument we were having when you arrived?


What's wrong with the one above?

You're missing the point. Your 'rational conclusion' is that it never works. If you say it never works, that means it doesn't work in any example I provide.

Yes, but the example has to actually fall under the absolute statement I made. Yours does not.

YES, it DOES mean that with YOUR 'hypothesis', because your hypothesis is that it DOESN'T work, not that it 'usually doesn't work'.

No, it doesn't. Again, that's called equivocation. You actually have to test the statement I made, not some statement you changed by changing the context.

No he hasn't, not at all, he's said that the point I'm trying to argue is redundant and irrelevant. Amusingly, if I were to be as pedantic as you, I could say he even disagrees with you, because he specifically says that torture 'usually is ineffective', not 'doesn't work'.

No, he didn't only say that. He pointed out your moving goalposts. He's pointed out your argument from ignorance. Both fallacies.

I agree that he doesn't agree with given those statements. He also hasn't demonstrated I'm engaging in fallacies, like he's shown of you. The difference is that one debunks your argument while the other simply shows that he and I don't agree.

This is not representing something that happened to me any more. This is an analogy now, when I say extreme physical anguish, I mean it. They have pliers and knives and hammers and stuff, they cut off my left testicle lets say.

Sure, let's say. Now if you can give me an verifiable example of that being effective, you'll have a point.

What's wrong with the one above?

Well, now that you've made it reasonable, nothing, if it were real. It's made up.

Are you changing your argument to "theoretically, torture could work"? I won't contest that. Unfortunately, until it DOES work, it's a valid conclusion to say it doesn't. Just like, theoretically, when I let go of this remote it go fly to the ceiling.

I'll wait for an actual real example of torture being effective in information gathering.

Yes, but the example has to actually fall under the absolute statement I made. Yours does not.


This is going nowhere. Please re-clarify your 'absolute statements' on torture.

Unfortunately, until it DOES work, it's a valid conclusion to say it doesn't. Just like, theoretically, when I let go of this remote it go fly to the ceiling.

Wait, so you're actually saying only current methods of torture don't work?

This is going nowhere. Please re-clarify your 'absolute statements' on torture.

I've clarified them repeatedly. Your example would be effective if you had a real example.

Do you have a real example of torture working to get information reliably? Bring out the plyers and hammers and whatnot, since you've not demonstrated you do actually know what extreme means.

Wait, so you're actually saying only current methods of torture don't work?

Where did I say that? Honestly, at this point, you're just making crap up.

Do you have a real example of torture working to get information reliably?

Read about how Turkish gangs in Britain force people who aren't 'given dem their dosh' (their money), to give them what they think is rightfully theirs.

Read about how Turkish gangs in Britain force people who aren't 'given dem their dosh' (their money), to give them what they think is rightfully theirs.

So, again, we're talking about information extraction, remember? Again, you have to actually work within the context, or can you not do that?

For example, torture is quite effective for punishing someone. No one was claiming otherwise.

This reminds me of that time Jon Stuart showed that clip of O'Reilly or somebody had McCain on his show, and McCain said "torture doesn't really work well to get information" and O'Reilly told him he was wrong.

Because O'Really knows a hell of a lot more than McCain about torture.

Plus, he's familiar with my works.

Where did I say that? Honestly, at this point, you're just making crap up.

Let me say that another way. Are you saying that, torture doesn't work at the moment, but if in the future something like the example I gave happened, then it does work?

So, again, we're talking about information extraction, remember?

It's basically the same thing, it's getting them to do what they want, getting them to comply.

Let me say that another way. Are you saying that, torture doesn't work at the moment, but if in the future something like the example I gave happened, then it does work?

Yes, that's how a rational conclusion works. Just like when I say "men cannot fly unassisted" I mean there are no examples of men being able to fly unassisted.

All scientific hypotheses accept that it can one day be proven wrong AND that the circumstances could one day change. Like I said, we're not talking about somekind of transcendent truth, but simply a rational conclusion.

All kidding and teasing aside, do you seriously not know this? I promise, no sarcasm. Do you really not know that science by definition accepts that it can only make a conclusion based on the evidence? More importantly, did you not notice that I stated this already? I didn't say that I based my conclusion on all future evidence. That would simply be silly.

It's basically the same thing, it's getting them to do what they want, getting them to comply.

Yes, except it's not. We're talking about whether you could trust the results. It's not the same thing, since no rational person is arguing that if you torture someone for a million dollars and they write you a check that you cannot trust the results (assuming you cash the check before letting them go).

Admittedly, at one point I gave you a little leeway with opening a safe since technically the combination counts as information.

Yes

That's actually slightly different to what you were saying before. You weren't just saying that it doesn't work, but were implying that it cannot work.


simply a rational conclusion.

It's just that your conclusion is highly irrational.


All kidding and teasing aside, do you seriously not know this? I promise, no sarcasm. Do you really not know that science by definition accepts that it can only make a conclusion based on the evidence? More importantly, did you not notice that I stated this already? I didn't say that I based my conclusion on all future evidence. That would simply be silly.

I know how scientific conclusions work, I just reject that your conclusion is the scientific one.

Yes, except it's not. We're talking about whether you could trust the results. It's not the same thing, since no rational person is arguing that if you torture someone for a million dollars and they write you a check that you cannot trust the results (assuming you cash the check before letting them go).


It doesn't work like that with Turkish gangs. Seriously read about them. It's just as possible to say whilst you're being tortured by them "yeah man, don't worry, I'll get you the money, please, I promise" (telling them what they want to hear), and then when they get sent back to 'retrieve the money', they can still not do it.

That's actually slightly different to what you were saying before. You weren't just saying that it doesn't work, but were implying that it cannot work.

Yes, yes, of course. In future, I will make sure that I include the blindingly stupid caveat that I don't actually have transcendent knowledge.

It's just that your conclusion is highly irrational.

It is? Then why is the only way for you to dispute it to tell me my conclusion is based on future data and a definition of torture no one was using for a purpose no one was talking about?

I know how scientific conclusions work, I just reject that your conclusion is the scientific one.

Because I didn't account for some hypothetical future case? Nonsense. By all accounts, it's been pretty blatantly demonstrated that you wouldn't recognize a scientific conclusion if it was in your pants pocket playing with your change.

Oh, come on, Hyde, admit it, that's funny.

It doesn't work like that with Turkish gangs. Seriously read about them. It's just as possible to say whilst you're being tortured by them "yeah man, don't worry, I'll get you the money, please, I promise" (telling them what they want to hear), and then when they get sent back to 'retrieve the money', they can still not do it.

So you supply evidence of torture being unreliable to prove "torture is unreliable" is not a valid statement. Interesting, that is.

Jocabia, scientists don't reject something that can happen in theory, just because it hasn't happened or been observed yet. The problem with the human growing wings theory is that it has neither been observed to have worked, nor can it work in theory (thanks to the design of our DNA).

So you supply evidence of torture being unreliable to prove "torture is unreliable" is not a valid statement. Interesting, that is.

In this case, it isn't unreliable. Due to the power of the Turkish gangs, it would be insane not to give them the money (if you have it).

Jocabia, scientists don't reject something that can happen in theory, just because it hasn't happened or been observed yet. The problem with the human growing wings theory is that it has neither been observed to have worked, nor can it work in theory (thanks to the design of our DNA).

Uh, no, in fact, it could work in theory if the right things happened.

Yes, it's true, that if you create a hypothetical where you make the person give up information and that information is useful and you make that happen consistently, that torture could work.

You realize that I could similarly make up a hypothetical about any social hypothesis that makes it wrong, but it wouldn't be a scientific test, nor would it remotely invalidate the theory.

I swear to you that I'm not kidding, do you have any idea how science works?

In this case, it isn't unreliable. Due to the power of the Turkish gangs, it would be insane not to give them the money (if you have it).

Hmmmm... perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

Regardless, you're still talking about coercing someone into acting, which undoubtedly could rather easily be evaluated. We're talking about collecting information.

I take you don't actually have an example, huh?

(Also, it's pretty funny that you act like being powerful means people will automatically comply reliably. If that were true, that people would comply with the torture of the government would be a given, since they literally have the power to torture a person pretty much as long as that person survives it without consequence.)

Yes, it's true, that if you create a hypothetical where you make the person give up information and that information is useful and you make that happen consistently, that torture could work.


I'm not making a hypothetical where torture has worked, I'm making a hypothetical situation THAT COULD HAPPEN without the need for magic or other impossible realities, and showing that if this situation were to occur, it would be irrational to assume that torture would never work on this person. Do you actually know how to read? Seriously, no sarcasm. Because nobody who knows how to read would actually describe my analogies in that way.

Hmmmm... perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

Regardless, you're still talking about coercing someone into acting, which undoubtedly could rather easily be evaluated. We're talking about collecting information.


Look who's shifting the goalposts now. Now we're talking about torture that only extracts information that can't be easily evaluated? So no longer is it, 'torture doesn't work', but 'this specific type of torture doesn't work'?

Look who's shifting the goalposts now. Now we're talking about torture that only extracts information that can't be easily evaluated? So no longer is it, 'torture doesn't work', but 'this specific type of torture doesn't work'?

I could be wrong, but I thought Jocabia meant that the premise of "coercing someone into acting" could be evaluated, not the information.

I'm not making a hypothetical where torture has worked, I'm making a hypothetical situation THAT COULD HAPPEN without the need for magic or other impossible realities, and showing that if this situation were to occur, it would be irrational to assume that torture would never work on this person. Do you actually know how to read? Seriously, no sarcasm. Because nobody who knows how to read would actually describe my analogies in that way.

Again, that's not a remotely rational way to invalidate a claim.

Alright, I'll give you an example.

Since I can make all three of these hypotheticals:

I survey a group of 1000 people. Every one of them support Obama.

I survey a group of 1000 people. Every one of them support McCain.

I survey a group of 1000 people and some of them support McCain and some of them support Obama.

.....

Now, because I can make up these three scenarios and all of them are actually possible, there is no rational conclusion based on the actual data you can make about what percentage of people support Obama.

Sorry, statistical analysis. Hyde has just demonstrated that if you can make up a scenario even if it's never happened before, so long as it's possible, it invalidates a claim based on actual real data.

I could be wrong, but I thought Jocabia meant that the premise of "coercing someone into acting" could be evaluated, not the information.

I thought he meant the 'acting' could easily be evaluated, as in it would be easy to see if the person 'performed the act' of giving them the money. Regardless, that type of torture seems not to count any more.

Edit: changed she with he, thought he was Mura for a second.

Now, because I can make up these three scenarios and all of them are actually possible, there is no rational conclusion based on the actual data you can make about what percentage of people support Obama.


It would be impossible actually to include (given that this is before the election), that 'at least someone will vote for McCain' as absolute, even if it's very statistically probable. See what I'm getting at?

Look who's shifting the goalposts now. Now we're talking about torture that only extracts information that can't be easily evaluated? So no longer is it, 'torture doesn't work', but 'this specific type of torture doesn't work'?

That's not what I said, actually. I simply pointed out what the thread is about. It's not about getting people to give you things or to do stuff. We were talking about whether torture is an effective means for extracting information. And no one said not easily evaluated, either. I'm simply drawing you back to the usage in the argument you joined.

Context, my friend. They taught you how to use it in gradeschool. It still applies.

That's not what I said, actually. I simply pointed out what the thread is about. It's not about getting people to give you things or to do stuff. We were talking about whether torture is an effective means for extracting information. And no one said not easily evaluated, either. I'm simply drawing you back to the usage in the argument you joined.

Context, my friend. They taught you how to use it in gradeschool. It still applies.

Before I address this, can I clarify, are you saying that torture can get people to comply, depending on what it is they need to do (i.e. give them money)?

It would be impossible actually to include (given that this is before the election), that 'at least someone will vote for McCain' as absolute, even if it's very statistically probable. See what I'm getting at?

Actually, we're talking about support, not voting, my friend. And it would absolutely be irrational to conclude, though every single example anyone can provide of people's answers says they support Obama, that we should expect that people support McCain. Your theoretical examples don't override actual data.

Dude, really, look at what you're claiming. You're claiming that your bullshit example that you can't support with any real data should invalidate a conclusion based on real data and that if I don't accept such irrational nonsense, that I'm claiming I have future information.

Man, I almost wish I was making that up, but I'm not that creative.

Before I address this, can I clarify, are you saying that torture can get people to comply, depending on what it is they need to do (i.e. give them money)?

Again, you can clarify what you'd like to talk about all you like, but it won't change the discussion you lept into or what we're talking about. We were very clearly talking about whether one could rely on the information one extracts from torture.

I will type this slowly. W e w e r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i f y o u t o r t u r e d s o m e o n e i n t o t a k i n g o f f t h e i r t o p t h a t y o u c o u l d n o t b e l e i v e y o u r e y e s. Hehe, that's actually pretty damn hard to read once Jolt takes out the spaces. Awesome.

Though, that would be a pretty funny argument. Start a thread on whether you can consider something that happened already to be a reliable outcome.

Actually, we're talking about support, not voting, my friend. And it would absolutely be irrational to conclude, though every single example anyone can provide of people's answers says they support Obama, that we should expect that people support McCain. Your theoretical examples don't override actual data.

Do you not see how completely irrelevant and different your example is to what's actually going on here? Seriously, do you think that analogy can compare to anything? Nobody is concluding something in the face of absolute statistical probability.


Dude, really, look at what you're claiming. You're claiming that your bullshit example that you can't support with any real data should invalidate a conclusion based on real data and that if I don't accept such irrational nonsense, that I'm claiming I have future information.


Here we go again with your use of the weasel and meaningless word 'data' (at least the way you use it). I would that no amount of data can prove your claim true, but I'm not even sure what your claim is now.

Hehe, that's actually pretty damn hard to read once Jolt takes out the spaces. Awesome.


Yes it is, please clarify in something readable.

Do you not see how completely irrelevant and different your example is to what's actually going on here? Seriously, do you think that analogy can compare to anything? Nobody is concluding something in the face of absolute statistical probability.

You are. You're talking about your hypothetical overriding the evidence.

Here we go again with your use of the weasel and meaningless word 'data' (at least the way you use it). I would that no amount of data can prove your claim true, but I'm not even sure what your claim is now.

Ah, yes, the weaselly way I use "data" to mean "things that have actually happened". I know it really messes up your nonsense to reject shit you made up as shit you made up, but I can't help it. I'm rational like that.

I know it's really hard to tell what my claim is. I mean, what could people possibly mean by torture when talking about Bush has committed a crime by authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists? What could we possibly mean? And how could we possibly have been referring to extracting information after discussing it for several pages?

Seriously, if you want to rest on "uh, duh, I don't get what you mean by these funky words 'torture and 'information' and 'science' and hypothesis'", go for it, but I can't imagine that it helps your argument.

You are. You're talking about your hypothetical overriding the evidence.


Your making massive massive assumptions, like there is actually evidence to support your statement.


Ah, yes, the weaselly way I use "data" to mean "things that have actually happened".

And imply that it's possible, by looking at things that have happened, to lead to your conclusion, which may not be (and isn't) the case. It makes your argument look better, because it's based on completely false premises.


I know it's really hard to tell what my claim is.

Yeah, since you're so annoyingly long winded and ambiguous.


I mean, what could people possibly mean by torture when talking about Bush has committed a crime by authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists? What could we possibly mean? And how could we possibly have been referring to extracting information after discussing it for several pages?

You do realise that what torture actually means is a big debate in itself, there have been many topics in this forum about it.

Jocabia, the fact of the matter is, even assuming (which you could not possibly know) that every attempt at torture to extract information has failed on every single person applied to, you can only include that it's very unlikely that torture works, not that it doesn't work for definite.

It doesn't work like that with Turkish gangs. Seriously read about them. It's just as possible to say whilst you're being tortured by them "yeah man, don't worry, I'll get you the money, please, I promise" (telling them what they want to hear), and then when they get sent back to 'retrieve the money', they can still not do it.

That sounds like you're saying that torture doesn't work... right?

It can make you say what someone wants to hear, but they can't trust it without some OTHER form of evidence... no?

Sources of information HAVE to provide useful information reliably or they don't work. If the same information has to be obtained elsewhere in order for you to have it, then it doesn't work. It's really that simple.

In case there was any wonder if the explanation about it being an information source is new, here is a quote.

It's been clear since long before Hyde entered the discussing that we were talking about whether or not torture is reliable for obtaining useful and reliable information.

That sounds like you're saying that torture doesn't work... right?


No, from that I can assume that torture may not always work. I cannot assume that it will never work.

Jocabia, the fact of the matter is, even assuming (which you could not possibly know) that every attempt at torture to extract information has failed on every single person applied to, you can only include that it's very unlikely that torture works, not that it doesn't work for definite.

I'm not assuming. I'm making a rational conclusion based on the information I have.

And if I'm making a scientific hypothesis I can't saying that it's unlikely. I have to make it falsifiable. Saying that it "unlikely" works makes it too wishy-washy. I'd have to say it works some set percentage of the time. The percentage of the time is 0%, because that is all the data supports.

You want me to make my hypothesis weak and silly, but the fact is that until I have information that it's only unlikely, saying it's unlikely is untrue, since I've not data that it will ever work.

Meanwhile, you once again claim I need all the information about every time it's ever been used. I need that no more than I need every example of evolution in order to have a theory on it, or I need a sample of every dinosaurs DNA in order to have a theory on it. (Incidentally, in case you didn't know, a theory is actually a bit more advanced than a hypothesis.)

No, from that I can assume that torture may not always work. I cannot assume that it will never work.

But, even in your example - you could tell nothing about the torture until you followed other methods (like actually physically collecting the debt).

Thus - the torture itself didn't 'work'.

Which situation would it 'work' in?

In case there was any wonder if the explanation about it being an information source is new, here is a quote.

It's been clear since long before Hyde entered the discussing that we were talking about whether or not torture is reliable for obtaining useful and reliable information.

Your tone and many other things about your posts implied that all types of torture don't work, that's irrelevant now however. Do you not think it's a bit silly to say that people can comply when tortured with providing money, but not with information? What's so magical and special about information?

No, from that I can assume that torture may not always work. I cannot assume that it will never work.

Unless you wanted to make a valid assumption based on the evidence.

You only have evidence that it never works. That doesn't preclude that you could one day have new evidence that could change your conclusion. That's always true.

Your tone and many other things about your posts implied that all types of torture don't work, that's irrelevant now however. Do you not think it's a bit silly to say that people can comply when tortured with providing money, but not with information? What's so magical and special about information?

Extracting information is a usage of torture, not a type, but that's not really relevant.

Apparently, you want me to accept that my "tone" overrides the fact that I openly expressed that we were discussing torture as a source of information repeatedly. What a silly thing to attempt to pull off.

But, even in your example - you could tell nothing about the torture until you followed other methods (like actually physically collecting the debt).

Thus - the torture itself didn't 'work'.

Which situation would it 'work' in?

Grave, by the by, give me a call. I plan and kicking it here for a weekend, and I'd love to meet your family if you're up for it. I'd happily drive to you.

Also, come on, man, admit it, as a scientist this shit is funny.

And if I'm making a scientific hypothesis I can't saying that it's unlikely.

Yes you can.


I have to make it falsifiable.

Likelihoods can be falsified.


Saying that it "unlikely" works makes it too wishy-washy.

Tough.


I'd have to say it works some set percentage of the time.

No you don't, you don't actually have to specify an exact percentage, in fact an exact percentage would be impossible to specify.


The percentage of the time is 0%, because that is all the data supports.


If I role the dice 6 times, and a 1 is never shown, according to you then, 'all the data' shows that the probability of throwing a one is 0%.


Meanwhile, you once again claim I need all the information about every time it's ever been used. I need that no more than I need every example of evolution in order to have a theory on it

That's because the theory of evolution is a different type of conclusion.

But, even in your example - you could tell nothing about the torture until you followed other methods (like actually physically collecting the debt).

Thus - the torture itself didn't 'work'.


What? That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion. I could just as easily say, that since I needed to go round to the front of my garden to verify whether water was actually coming out of my hose, that shows that turning the tap on didn't actually work. Seriously, that's basically what you're saying. The objective of the torture is to get the money, not to know if the person gave them the money, that's the objective of observing.

I must go to bed, you and grave, the uber statisticians (seriously, I can't believe that anyone who understands statistics can say it's possible to conclude a 0% probability of something happening, just by observing what has happened so far), can enjoy bitching about me.

Also, does anyone here, anyone impart from Jocabia, think that the possibility that torture can work on someone, is 0%?

Yes you can.

Uh, no you can't. You have to define it specifically. Like I said, you're only demonstrating that you don't know shit about science.

Likelihoods can be falsified.

No, they can't unless they're specifically defined. Two opposing hypotheses cannot both be shown valid by the same data or the hypotheses are not correctly written.

Relevent to different activities I could argue that 10% of the time is likely. I could argue 90%. I could argue 50%. I have to define my terms either with context or by actually stating it up front.

Tough.

You'd be able to say that if science didn't have rules. Unfortunately, the rules of science aren't subject to your opinion.

No you don't, you don't actually have to specify an exact percentage, in fact an exact percentage would be impossible to specify.

Again, you'd have to actually make it so your statement was clearly falsifiable. That's the point. You have to be specific. You're missing that bit.

If I role the dice 6 times, and a 1 is never shown, according to you then, 'all the data' shows that the probability of throwing a one is 0%.

Actually, no, I wouldn't say that, because there is other data that I have. Only you are claiming that the only way to test a hypothesis is practical testing. I can also weigh the die, find it's balance and evaluate various other information about it. I could throw it again. I could throw similar dice. I could create a simulation. I could look at how other similar objects have worked in the past. You're inability to understand that science isn't nearly as limited as your sixth grade teach might have led you to believe has no bearing on how things actually work.

That's because the theory of evolution is a different type of conclusion.

It is? What specifically makes it a "different type" of conclusion.

Also, does anyone here, anyone impart from Jocabia, think that the possibility that torture can work on someone, is 0%?

More importantly, can anyone here actually show data that demonstrates it is not 0%?

See, Hyde believes that statisticians just make up numbers, rather than draw conclusions based on the available data. I know it's a crazy idea to make conclusions based on data, but let's pretend that rational people use evidence and if anyone wants to refute my claim they present, you know, evidence that it's false.

Grave, by the by, give me a call. I plan and kicking it here for a weekend, and I'd love to meet your family if you're up for it. I'd happily drive to you.

Also, come on, man, admit it, as a scientist this shit is funny.

As a scientist, this is funny... as a interested civilian, I'm confused. It seems like the argument is 'well, yeah it didn't work there, but it could work in this situation..where it... oh.. doesn't work either...'

I've got the number here somewhere, unless it's changed. I'll give you a call.

:)

As a scientist, this is funny... as a interested civilian, I'm confused. It seems like the argument is 'well, yeah it didn't work there, but it could work in this situation..where it... oh.. doesn't work either...'

I've got the number here somewhere, unless it's changed. I'll give you a call.

:)

Still the same. Unlikely to change.

And, yes, it really does appear to be "yeah, but I don't like that data about real events, because I can think of an entirely invented scenario that might invalidate it, or might not, which of course doesn't mean it's unreliable or anything."

My favorite bit is where he tells me "tough" in reply to my attempt to explain to him that a scientific hypothesis must be specific so that it is clearly falsifiable.

Still the same. Unlikely to change.

And, yes, it really does appear to be "yeah, but I don't like that data about real events, because I can think of an entirely invented scenario that might invalidate it, or might not, which of course doesn't mean it's unreliable or anything."

My favorite bit is where he tells me "tough" in reply to my attempt to explain to him that a scientific hypothesis must be specific so that it is clearly falsifiable.

Science is mean.

I was once tortured by a crab. That worked.

If 'worked' is read, here, to mean 'bloody hurt'. And if 'tortured' is read to mean 'pinched'. And if 'once' is read to mean 'about four times, actually... bastard'.

I was once tortured by a crab. That worked.

You gave away the top secret location of the bisque sauce?

You gave away the top secret location of the bisque sauce?

At the last minute, too. Shortly before it asplode!!!

No, they can't unless they're specifically defined.

'Very unlikely' has a specific definition that can be falsified. If I were to suddenly show you data that showed torture had a 80% probability of working, that would falsify it. And even if you don't agree, and the fact that it's impossible to specify an exact percentage means it's unfalsifiable, then that's precisely another reason why you CAN'T make a scientific hypothesis about it.


Relevent to different activities I could argue that 10% of the time is likely. I could argue 90%. I could argue 50%. I have to define my terms either with context or by actually stating it up front.

Eh?


You'd be able to say that if science didn't have rules. Unfortunately, the rules of science aren't subject to your opinion.

Actually, there have never been universal absolute rules of science, in fact exactly what constitutes a scientific hypothesis is still a matter of debate in many academic circles, many major academics disagree with Popper when he says that falsifiability is the defining characteristic of a scientific hypothesis. Anyway, in reference to 'tough', I say tough because you absolutely CANNOT make up a number out of ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE, just because you don't like that your current answer is too wishy washy.


Again, you'd have to actually make it so your statement was clearly falsifiable. That's the point. You have to be specific. You're missing that bit.


And 'very unlikely' is clearly falsifiable.


Actually, no, I wouldn't say that, because there is other data that I have. Only you are claiming that the only way to test a hypothesis is practical testing. I can also weigh the die, find it's balance and evaluate various other information about it. I could throw it again. I could throw similar dice. I could create a simulation. I could look at how other similar objects have worked in the past. You're inability to understand that science isn't nearly as limited as your sixth grade teach might have led you to believe has no bearing on how things actually work.

You demonstrate my point so well, seriously read your post, this is exactly what I've been trying to tell you!!!! You've just shown how seeing that the dice didn't roll a one in the observed attempts had absolutely no part whatsoever in determining the probability of rolling a one. The methods used to determine the probability were not used in conjunction with the observations, had you observed something completely different, or not made any observations, by using those methods (weighing etc...), you would have still come up with EXACTLY the same probability. You've shown that simply observing what has happened so far is not sufficient enough to specify an absolute probability without knowing more about the thing you're observing. If you actually observe torture, there is nothing about torture that makes it physically impossible to extract information, the torturer has ears, the person being tortured has a mouth, there is nothing about torture that is making it physically impossible (like your 0% would indicate) for someone to give the torturer information. It's not like you're gouging someone's eyes out and then asking them to read, that would make it physically impossible.


It is? What specifically makes it a "different type" of conclusion.

For the reasons above, it is not based solely upon historical sources.

More importantly, can anyone here actually show data that demonstrates it is not 0%?

See, Hyde believes that statisticians just make up numbers, rather than draw conclusions based on the available data. I know it's a crazy idea to make conclusions based on data, but let's pretend that rational people use evidence and if anyone wants to refute my claim they present, you know, evidence that it's false.

No, you're making up numbers. There is absolutely no data whatsoever that justifies a 0% probability.

No, you're making up numbers. There is absolutely no data whatsoever that justifies a 0% probability.

Pardon? So then you can actually give some data that falsifies it, of course. Unless, you're claiming that we've never seen torture before or it's results.

So where is this data? Go ahead. All it takes is demonstrated that torture does produce reliable information. I'll wait.

'Very unlikely' has a specific definition that can be falsified. If I were to suddenly show you data that showed torture had a 80% probability of working, that would falsify it. And even if you don't agree, and the fact that it's impossible to specify an exact percentage means it's unfalsifiable, then that's precisely another reason why you CAN'T make a scientific hypothesis about it.

Very unlikely does not have a specific definition. Is 20% very unlikely? 10%? 15%? 60%? See, if whether it's been falsified or not is easily disputeable, and with vague words like "very unlikely" it is, then you're not conducting science. Science isn't a word game. You have to clearly define your terms.

Meanwhild, you claim that no hypothesis can be made about it. You're welcome to do this if you can prove that no amount of data could ever be extracted that would prove the reliability or lack thereof of torture for extracting information.

Note: that doesn't mean saying "I believe that science doesn't allow for historical analysis of what's already happened and is currently happening and that you have to conduct a ludicrous experiment I know isn't actually possible."

I say the only way to test the sun and the earth (and every other body) contribute to gravity is to remove them from having an effect on us, therefore, we cannot make any scientific hypothesis about gravity and the sun and earth's effect on us. Yay, me, I've falsified the current understanding of gravity because I made a completely unscientific requirement that can never be met.


Eh?

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You're so clueless about how science works that you can't even follow along. Seriously, this is kid stuff and you're rendered speechless by explanation of relative terminology.

If cars are very likely to kill people, it would be easy to argue that if people were killed 20% of the times they drove that this counts as very likely. However, if I argued that with a shift in the equilibrium of a coin it would be very likely to come up heads, I'd have to hit a much higher percentage, now wouldn't I?

Actually, there have never been universal absolute rules of science, in fact exactly what constitutes a scientific hypothesis is still a matter of debate in many academic circles, many major academics disagree with Popper when he says that falsifiability is the defining characteristic of a scientific hypothesis. Anyway, in reference to 'tough', I say tough because you absolutely CANNOT make up a number out of ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE, just because you don't like that your current answer is too wishy washy.

I didn't make up a number out of no where. I realize that you don't actually understand, but if all of the available evidence says that it is ineffective as a source of information then it's totally appropriate to say that it is ineffective 100% of the time, or that it is effective 0%. When the data suggests something else (which you continue to demonstrate you don't have an example of), the conclusion changes. The problem is that there has been no evidence offered that shows a reliable result.

Now, as far as wishy-washy. Go for it. I recommend you offer a scientific paper where you say "unlikely" without giving any kind of definition of that term that makes the line between supported and falsified clear.

And there have for a very long time been accepted rules of science. You keep trying to throw out these words like 'universal' and 'absolute'. You're correct, it's not uncommon for young earthers to claim the rules of science are different than they are. Unfortunately for them and you, science is a discipline with rules. While they aren't ordained by the hand of God, they are clear and necessary and if you're going to engage in science you must actually follow the discipline.

Now, you find this displeasing, because those very rules are exactly what demonstrates just how stupid your claim is that a hypothetical can falsify a conclusion based on all of the available data.


And 'very unlikely' is clearly falsifiable.

Again, it's rather obvious you don't actually know anything about science.


You demonstrate my point so well, seriously read your post, this is exactly what I've been trying to tell you!!!! You've just shown how seeing that the dice didn't roll a one in the observed attempts had absolutely no part whatsoever in determining the probability of rolling a one. The methods used to determine the probability were not used in conjunction with the observations, had you observed something completely different, or not made any observations, by using those methods (weighing etc...), you would have still come up with EXACTLY the same probability. You've shown that simply observing what has happened so far is not sufficient enough to specify an absolute probability without knowing more about the thing you're observing. If you actually observe torture, there is nothing about torture that makes it physically impossible to extract information, the torturer has ears, the person being tortured has a mouth, there is nothing about torture that is making it physically impossible (like your 0% would indicate) for someone to give the torturer information. It's not like you're gouging someone's eyes out and then asking them to read, that would make it physically impossible.

Uh, no. Again, you don't actually understand how it works. There are more ways of performing science than practical experimentation. They teach this in high school.

The effectiveness of torture can't be measured by practical experimentation. It also can't be shown to be effective and some probability because we don't have a way to measure that probability in any predictive way. Moreso, if you were to claim that there were some percentage above zero, the fact that we have been torturing since virtually the beginning of man and we have no evidence of it being effective, we can't just say that your proposal that it would be in some hypothetical debunks the bulk of data.

No one is claiming that getting a useful result is impossible. What I'm saying is that it occurs 0% of the time. There is a difference.

For the reasons above, it is not based solely upon historical sources.

Except, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. You confuse impossible with never successful. You think demonstrating that something is technically possible is the same as demonstrating that it actually occurs.

It's perfectly valid to say that 0% of the time people naturally give birth to chimps. It's possible. Mutations happen all the time. The mutations can happen in more than one way, in more than one expression. It's technically possible. However, it's never happened in any recorded data we have access to, so our conclusion has to be based on the actual data. Now you could create a hypothetical where the specific necessary mutations occur and a human gives birth to a creature that has chimp dna and is thus a chimp, but that won't falsify the conclusion.

Now, someone at some point might discover something that is the reason behind it not happening and it might be something that cannot be changed further supporting the conclusion. Or at some point, they might find some external factor that make it so people don't have chimp babies, and once they recognized and removed this source, let's say it's sugar or something, then it would happen and the conclusion would change. That's science. However, you don't just get to guess that it will be falsified and therefore we should act as if it has been falsified.

Do you have a real example of torture working to get information reliably?

(in the middle an he gives an example of turkish games forcing people to give them money)

Regardless, you're still talking about coercing someone into acting, which undoubtedly could rather easily be evaluated. We're talking about collecting information.Look who's shifting the goalposts now. Now we're talking about torture that only extracts information that can't be easily evaluated? So no longer is it, 'torture doesn't work', but 'this specific type of torture doesn't work'?

So I point out the same requirements both at the beginning and the end of a request that makes Hyde give me an example and it's shifting the goalposts to remind him what I asked.

Science is mean.

I was once tortured by a crab. That worked.

If 'worked' is read, here, to mean 'bloody hurt'. And if 'tortured' is read to mean 'pinched'. And if 'once' is read to mean 'about four times, actually... bastard'.

Dammit. I've been proven wrong.

Wait, my premise is unfalsifiable.

Wait, I've been proven wrong.

Dude, I'm locked in a circle of Hydesland's misunderstanding of science. Quick someone else make up completely nonsensical rules of science that break me free and let me see Jessica Simpson naked. Do it now, move.

No, you're making up numbers. There is absolutely no data whatsoever that justifies a 0% probability.

Pardon? So then you can actually give some data that falsifies it, of course. Unless, you're claiming that we've never seen torture before or it's results.

So where is this data? Go ahead. All it takes is demonstrated that torture does produce reliable information. I'll wait.

The implication being, here, that if no data exists to justify a 0% probability, some data should exist to support a non-zero probability.

That should make your job easier looking for statistics.

Pardon? So then you can actually give some data that falsifies it, of course. Unless, you're claiming that we've never seen torture before or it's results.

So where is this data? Go ahead. All it takes is demonstrated that torture does produce reliable information. I'll wait.

*facepalm.jpg*

Very unlikely does not have a specific definition. Is 20% very unlikely? 10%? 15%? 60%? See, if whether it's been falsified or not is easily disputeable, and with vague words like "very unlikely" it is, then you're not conducting science. Science isn't a word game. You have to clearly define your terms.


I rarely see such insane, pointless, pedantry. If you can be this absurdly pedantic, and have such ridiculously extreme criteria for unfalsifiable, that no other scientist on earth has, then I get to claim that all your arguments are bullshit, because we don't know that the universe is actually real. And science is a word game, read Wittgenstein.


You're welcome to do this if you can prove that no amount of data could ever be extracted that would prove the reliability or lack thereof of torture for extracting information.

No amount of data that's possible to use (i.e. historical sources) can provide a probability of 0%. Even if something is repeated a hundred billion times, with no success, this fact in itself is not enough to produce a 0% probability. Well, usually when it's like that, the probability tends to an infinitesimally small number that you might as well call 0. However, there hasn't been anywhere near enough thorough examinations into torture where one has been able to ascertain that every single person tortured did not give information.


I say the only way to test the sun and the earth (and every other body) contribute to gravity is to remove them from having an effect on us, therefore, we cannot make any scientific hypothesis about gravity and the sun and earth's effect on us.

Of course you can, scientific models and mathematical formula show why we have gravity. And even ignoring that, as I've been saying, gravity has been proved by proof by exhaustion, for every time something is affected by gravity, the possibility that something isn't affected by gravity tends to an infinitesimally mall number, which may as well be 0%. But again, torture has not been observed and repeated for practically an infinite amount of time.


Yay, me, I've falsified the current understanding of gravity because I made a completely unscientific requirement that can never be met.


No, you just did your usual strawman bullshit.


If cars are very likely to kill people, it would be easy to argue that if people were killed 20% of the times they drove that this counts as very likely. However, if I argued that with a shift in the equilibrium of a coin it would be very likely to come up heads, I'd have to hit a much higher percentage, now wouldn't I?


How is that problematic? We're not operating without context here.


I didn't make up a number out of no where. I realize that you don't actually understand, but if all of the available evidence says that it is ineffective as a source of information then it's totally appropriate to say that it is ineffective 100% of the time, or that it is effective 0%.

No, assuming that all the historical examinations of examples of torture (fuck your use of the extremely vague word evidence, that could mean practically anything) does say this (I would actually like to see a source showing that not a single person tortured has ever given information, not even TCT's sources say anything extreme as that), it would be totally appropriate to say torture has been effective 0% of the time. But it wouldn't be appropriate to say torture has a 0% probability of working, as in it can never possibly work, which is what you seem to imply.


When the data suggests something else (which you continue to demonstrate you don't have an example of), the conclusion changes.

Humorous, considering you haven't demonstrated any of your claims either, and your claims are fucking extreme, I would say the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you anyway.


Now, as far as wishy-washy. Go for it. I recommend you offer a scientific paper where you say "unlikely" without giving any kind of definition of that term that makes the line between supported and falsified clear.


Just search 'scientists conclude unlikely' into google, and you will find what you need.


And there have for a very long time been accepted rules of science. You keep trying to throw out these words like 'universal' and 'absolute'. You're correct, it's not uncommon for young earthers to claim the rules of science are different than they are. Unfortunately for them and you, science is a discipline with rules. While they aren't ordained by the hand of God, they are clear and necessary and if you're going to engage in science you must actually follow the discipline.

This is just total nonsense. If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that what exactly makes a scientific hypothesis has been highly disputed in academia, and not just by 'young earthers', I mean just taking one aspect of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiablity#Criticisms.


Yep, this just indicates to me that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If you ever actually study the philosophy of science and falsifiability, and not dismiss any scientist


Actually, I have specifically studied, written essays and done exams on such a subject.


Now, you find this displeasing, because those very rules are exactly what demonstrates just how stupid your claim is that a hypothetical can falsify a conclusion based on all of the available data.


I would never make such a claim, because I would never use weasel words like "all the available evidence", since that could mean anything.


Uh, no. Again, you don't actually understand how it works. There are more ways of performing science than practical experimentation.

When the fuck did I ever say otherwise? You really don't understand do you?


because we don't have a way to measure that probability in any predictive way.

Exactly, so don't predict that torture will never be effective.


Moreso, if you were to claim that there were some percentage above zero, the fact that we have been torturing since virtually the beginning of man and we have no evidence of it being effective

Prove this.


No one is claiming that getting a useful result is impossible. What I'm saying is that it occurs 0% of the time. There is a difference.


No, you're saying a lot more then that. You're deducing from the fact that because torture working to extract information apparently occurs 0%, torture itself fundamentally doesn't work (which implies it will never work).


Except, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. You confuse impossible with never successful.

No, that's what YOU'VE been doing! Unless, all this time your position has merely been that it has never worked SO FAR, and nothing more then that? Please tell me this hasn't been your position all along.


It's perfectly valid to say that 0% of the time people naturally give birth to chimps. It's possible. Mutations happen all the time. The mutations can happen in more than one way, in more than one expression. It's technically possible. However, it's never happened in any recorded data we have access to, so our conclusion has to be based on the actual data.

No, your conclusion is obviously based on much more then that. If you really can't see this, then I'm done debating with you.

The implication being, here, that if no data exists to justify a 0% probability, some data should exist to support a non-zero probability.

That should make your job easier looking for statistics.

No, I'm actually saying that no data exists to justify any specific percentage.

Jocabia, I ask that you don't reply to my massive quote mountain as it's getting nowhere, I do not really have enough of an incentive to reply to another massive post. We have the option to agree to disagree, I would say that this would be a prudent option, before it gets any uglier. I apologies for any rudeness on my part, it's nothing personal, I'm always like this when debates get this intense.

No, I'm actually saying that no data exists to justify any specific percentage.

If 0% is unjustified then you would have evidence it is not 0%. That's how it works. Much like if you said there are no strip clubs in Chattanooga, TN, all I'd have to do is provide one and you'd be wrong. I wouldn't have to be able to tell you how many there actually are to prove that your statement is wrong. That's the point of stating a specific premise.

Jocabia, I ask that you don't reply to my massive quote mountain as it's getting nowhere, I do not really have enough of an incentive to reply to another massive post. We have the option to agree to disagree, I would say that this would be a prudent option, before it gets any uglier. I apologies for any rudeness on my part, it's nothing personal, I'm always like this when debates get this intense.

Agreeing to disagree is for when we're arguing about whether a girl is hot or whether a person is nice or something. You claimed that science isn't clearly defined, that an absolute statement isn't falsifiable and that the only way to draw a conclusion about torture is to use a practical test.

They aren't opinions. They are provably wrong. In fact, I'm in the process of capturing some of those statements to point in the same place because I have found several scientist friends looking for entertainment.

Here is what we can agree to disagree on. I believe you should have a clue before you start talking about how science and logic work. You believe that your opinion has some validity. I supsect we'll always disagree on that. In the mean time, I'm going to show your posts stating that you an absolute statement is unfalsifiable because it's too vague but statements like "very unlikely" can be falsified. Seriously, I don't care how long the posts are getting, I honestly hope that you reply. This stuff is gold.

I rarely see such insane, pointless, pedantry. If you can be this absurdly pedantic, and have such ridiculously extreme criteria for unfalsifiable, that no other scientist on earth has, then I get to claim that all your arguments are bullshit, because we don't know that the universe is actually real. And science is a word game, read Wittgenstein.


I bet this seems like it made sense in your head. One example that actually happened is ridiculously extreme criteria? In what world?


No amount of data that's possible to use (i.e. historical sources) can provide a probability of 0%. Even if something is repeated a hundred billion times, with no success, this fact in itself is not enough to produce a 0% probability. Well, usually when it's like that, the probability tends to an infinitesimally small number that you might as well call 0. However, there hasn't been anywhere near enough thorough examinations into torture where one has been able to ascertain that every single person tortured did not give information.

Again, you confuse impossible and 0% probability. One is a conclusion based on the current data. Scientists always accept that things could change or new data could emerge. I've mentioned this several times.


Of course you can, scientific models and mathematical formula show why we have gravity. And even ignoring that, as I've been saying, gravity has been proved by proof by exhaustion, for every time something is affected by gravity, the possibility that something isn't affected by gravity tends to an infinitesimally mall number, which may as well be 0%. But again, torture has not been observed and repeated for practically an infinite amount of time.

Again, thank you for proving my point. You demonstrate AGAIN that there are many ways to draw and test conclusions. You made up ONE experiment, declared it impossible, and then claimed no conclusions were possible as a result. The problem, of course, being that there is no such requirement and many, many things by your own admission do not require the type of testing you propose for torture. The reason they don't require it? It's because it's not possible.


No, you just did your usual strawman bullshit.

Uh, no. I made a comparison. You apparently don't know what a strawman is either. A strawmen isn't an invalid comparison.


How is that problematic? We're not operating without context here.

Even within context, you have to be clear. I'm sorry that this unclear to you, but then you think that 0% is unfalsifiable as well.


No, assuming that all the historical examinations of examples of torture (fuck your use of the extremely vague word evidence, that could mean practically anything) does say this (I would actually like to see a source showing that not a single person tortured has ever given information, not even TCT's sources say anything extreme as that), it would be totally appropriate to say torture has been effective 0% of the time. But it wouldn't be appropriate to say torture has a 0% probability of working, as in it can never possibly work, which is what you seem to imply.

Again, you ask for something that isn't the same as evidence. What the source you were given did say is that the available evidence doesn't support that it works. Again, you don't have to have every possible event that's every happened. If that requirement existed, no one could ever make any conclusions ever.

Again, 0% probability does not mean impossible. It means that if your ran the experiment 1000 times, you'd expect it to have the same outcome every time. It doesn't mean it's not possible for a different outcome, just that a different outcome is not supported by the evidence.


Humorous, considering you haven't demonstrated any of your claims either, and your claims are fucking extreme, I would say the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you anyway.

It is? You've seen evidence that says it doesn't work, which is the original claim you protested. I only changed it to 0% probability for comparitive purposes. However, you're welcome to prove me wrong. Show ONE example. It's a rather easy request.


Just search 'scientists conclude unlikely' into google, and you will find what you need.

You mean summaries of their articles? Dude, seriously, this is the great stuff. I sincerely hope that one day you actually learn how science works so that you realize how embarrassing this argument is for you.

This is just total nonsense. If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that what exactly makes a scientific hypothesis has been highly disputed in academia, and not just by 'young earthers', I mean just taking one aspect of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiablity#Criticisms.

Hehe. Did you actually read that? Hint: it doesn't say what you think it says.

Actually, I have specifically studied, written essays and done exams on such a subject.

Clearly, you didn't learn anything. Your understanding of falsification is so absurd that one wonders if playing a joke.

I would never make such a claim, because I would never use weasel words like "all the available evidence", since that could mean anything.

Hahaha. Seriously, this is awesome. No, it couldn't. Talking about evidence is a using "weasel words"? I've told you exactly what usage of torture we're talking about. I've told you exactly what we're talking about when we say torture. I've told you exactly what kind of evidence we're addressing. All science is based on the available evidence, my friend. Always. That's how it works.

When the fuck did I ever say otherwise? You really don't understand do you?

When you said the only way to draw a conclusion on torture is a ludicrous test you suggested. Seriously, I almost wish you were trolling. I seriously do. I'd like if this were entertaining for both of us.

You literally claimed that you cannot draw any conclusions about torture. The idea is so silly, that one can only laugh.

Exactly, so don't predict that torture will never be effective.

Science requires that you make predictions, my friend. It's part of the definition of the discpline. Seriously, you make this claim while you claim that you've studied the rules of science and written on them. I mean, come on. You think that science doesn't make predictions based on past evidence? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Prove this.

See what I mean? Science doesn't prove. It rights a claim and then seeks to either support it or disprove it. In other words, the claim is yours to disprove. You've seen that some evidence that supports it exist. Now provide evidence against it. If you can, it's falsified. If you cannot, it stands till someone does. That's the nature of it.

No, you're saying a lot more then that. You're deducing from the fact that because torture working to extract information apparently occurs 0%, torture itself fundamentally doesn't work (which implies it will never work).

No, it doesn't imply it will never work. It implies there is no evidence currently that it will work. It predicts it will never work, because that's the nature of the beast, but one is expected to keep slamming data against it as it holds or breaks.

No, that's what YOU'VE been doing! Unless, all this time your position has merely been that it has never worked SO FAR, and nothing more then that? Please tell me this hasn't been your position all along.

Dude, seriously, read, then post. I've said repeatedly that I'm not basing my claims on the future or hypothetical futures. I'm basing it on the currently available evidence. The acceptance that new data could falsify the premise is inherent and required. It happens all the time.


No, your conclusion is obviously based on much more then that. If you really can't see this, then I'm done debating with you.

My conclusion is based on the data. What it's not based on is made-up scenarios that you created out of thin air. I'm sorry that I didn't incorporate shit I made up into my claim. It must be because I'm rational.

If 0% is unjustified then you would have evidence it is not 0%.


that an absolute statement isn't falsifiable and that the only way to draw a conclusion about torture is to use a practical test.

I'm sick of this crap, you just hear what you want to hear, you either don't read what I say or have absolutely no idea what my position is and instead just assume I'm a fucking idiot and argue against a mythical strawman (as the quoted statements show me). And I'm sick of this pretentious, made up bullshit about you and your scientific buddies (who must be really, really sad, if they have time to analyse some boring crap from an internet forum and find it humorous that someone doesn't agree that the absolute rules of science are so absolute (like so many other thousands of well accredited philosophers, writers and scientists), in fact if such people exist, they are exactly the sort of people that are giving the scientific community a bad name). I find it hilarious that you even have the audacity to claim that any statement about science is 'provably wrong'. Science is just a man made method of observation and analysis, it is not a structure of the universe.

I'm sick of this crap, you just hear what you want to hear, you either don't read what I say or have absolutely no idea what my position is and instead just assume I'm a fucking idiot and argue against a mythical strawman (as the quoted statements show me). And I'm sick of this pretentious, made up bullshit about you and your scientific buddies (who must be really, really sad, if they have time to analyse some boring crap from an internet forum and find it humorous that someone doesn't agree that the absolute rules of science are so absolute (like so many other thousands of well accredited philosophers, writers and scientists), in fact if such people exist, they are exactly the sort of people that are giving the scientific community a bad name). I find it hilarious that you even have the audacity to claim that any statement about science is 'provably wrong'. Science is just a man made method of observation and analysis, it is not a structure of the universe.

How about this, no assumption. Answer yes or no. Feel free to expound on that yes or no, but answer.

Is it required that you have every example of something happening in order to make a conclusion about it?

Is it required that if you're talking about torture that you conduct a practical experiment?

Is it possible to draw a conclusion on torture based on its usage and what data has been collected on it?

If one were to make predictions in science, should those predictions be based on available past data if that is all the evidence that you have to base it on?

Do all things that are possible have some probability of occurring?

One last question... it is not yes or no.

There are current rules to the discipline of science. Even if they aren't absolute, as you claim, you must be aware of them. What are they?

Jocabia, uou keep pretending that because I say X about what the SPECIFIC type of evidence allows you to deduce in this SPECIFIC case, that must mean that I apply the same to every single type of evidence in any situation universally. It's an utterly absurd deduction, yet you use these assumptions to make your arguments more credible, by saying total bullshit like "your claims about vague hypotheses and whether or not one should make predictions based on current evidence". That's exactly what makes 'evidence' a weasel word. What I say only applies to certain types of evidence, it doesn't have any meaning towards evidence in general.

Is it required that you have every example of something happening in order to make a conclusion about it?

No.


Is it required that if you're talking about torture that you conduct a practical experiment?


If you're talking about torture? No.


Is it possible to draw a conclusion on torture based on its usage and what data has been collected on it?


Yes. Just not your conclusion.


If one were to make predictions in science, should those predictions be based on available past data if that is all the evidence that you have to base it on?


Yes, but the amount the evidence can tell you affects how strong a probability you can apply to something.


Do all things that are possible have some probability of occurring?


Depends what you mean. Probability is in one sense a largely abstract concept.


There are current rules to the discipline of science. Even if they aren't absolute, as you claim, you must be aware of them. What are they?

What a stupid question.

No.

Good. Glad that's settled. I suppose you won't ask me again to prove that no torture has ever been effective, since that's asking me to provide every example of torture that has ever occurred.


If you're talking about torture? No.

I see we're playing word games. Incidentally, we're talking about torture.

However, I'll reword. In order to draw a conclusion about torture is it required that you conduct a practical experiment (to be clear, I'm referencing an experiment where you select subjects and torture them in order to evaluate the results as opposed to simply evaluating the results of torture that occurs outside of experimentation.)


Yes. Just not your conclusion.

Okay, give an example of a conclusion that we can actually make? Present a hypothesis based on the evidence we currently have regarding torture. Use it to make a prediction.


Yes, but the amount the evidence can tell you affects how strong a probability you can apply to something.

Give an example.


Depends what you mean. Probability is in one sense a largely abstract concept.

Hehe. But "very unlikely" isn't?

It is not an abstract concept in the way I used it. Given the way I've been using it in this thread and you've been arguing against it (which you've not had any problem doing), do all things that are possible have to treated as if they have some probability of occurring?


What a stupid question.

Are you claiming there are no guidelines or rules which scientists must meet in their practice? If the answer is no, then what rules are there.

Or, I'll tell you what, go ahead and describe the scientific method, unless you're also claiming that doesn't exist.

While we're at it... does a scientist prove his theory right or does he support his theory through analysis and experimentation that would disprove it?

Good. Glad that's settled. I suppose you won't ask me again to prove that no torture has ever been effective, since that's asking me to provide every example of torture that has ever occurred.


In order to make A conclusion you don't need every single example. But in order to PROVE that torture has never worked (that specific conclusion), you would have to look at every single example of torture, and show that not a single attempt has been successful. You can pragmatically assume that torture doesn't work, if that's what you think the 'data' tells you, but you haven't proved that it never has worked.


In order to draw a conclusion about torture is it required that you conduct a practical experiment (to be clear, I'm referencing an experiment where you select subjects and torture them in order to evaluate the results as opposed to simply evaluating the results of torture that occurs outside of experimentation.)

Depends on the type of conclusion.


Okay, give an example of a conclusion that we can actually make? Present a hypothesis based on the evidence we currently have regarding torture. Use it to make a prediction.


I don't think you would like my conclusion. It wouldn't have a specific percentage.


Give an example.


Assume you cannot observe and analyse the dice. Someone rolls the dice three times and tells you that a one was never rolled. The person then rolls it a hundred trillion times, and tells you that a one is never rolled. Do you not see how in the second time, the probability a one cannot be rolled is much higher?


Given the way I've been using it in this thread and you've been arguing against it (which you've not had any problem doing), do all things that are possible have to treated as if they have some probability of occurring?


I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.


Are you claiming there are no guidelines or rules which scientists must meet in their practice? If the answer is no, then what rules are there.

Or, I'll tell you what, go ahead and describe the scientific method, unless you're also claiming that doesn't exist.


I like this quote: " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"


While we're at it... does a scientist prove his theory right or does he support his theory through analysis and experimentation that would disprove it?

The latter sounds more accurate.

In order to make A conclusion you don't need every single example. But in order to PROVE that torture has never worked (that specific conclusion), you would have to look at every single example of torture, and show that not a single attempt has been successful. You can pragmatically assume that torture doesn't work, if that's what you think the 'data' tells you, but you haven't proved that it never has worked.

PROVING was your request, not mine. I know that it's unscientific to request such at thing. As I said, no one is talking about some transcendent truth. We're talking about evidence.

That was actually the purpose of my last question. Now we have both agreed their is no such burden.

"does a scientist prove his theory right or does he support his theory through analysis and experimentation that would disprove it? "
"The latter sounds more accurate".

Depends on the type of conclusion.

It's no wonder why you're avoiding the question.


I don't think you would like my conclusion. It wouldn't have a specific percentage.

And avoiding another.


Assume you cannot observe and analyse the dice. Someone rolls the dice three times and tells you that a one was never rolled. The person then rolls it a hundred trillion times, and tells you that a one is never rolled. Do you not see how in the second time, the probability a one cannot be rolled is much higher?

Uh, that wasn't the question. The question is should you make a prediction based on the available evidence? That has nothing to do with how likely you are to be correct.


I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

It's funny how obviously you are trying avoid actually answering the questions asked given how much you've bitched that I'm going out of my way to misrepresent your statements. These are rather simple questions unless you attempt to ignore the context.

You just AGAIN used probability in exactly the same way I did. However, since you're squirming, I'll reword - if something is technically possible, would you object to anyone ever concluding it never happens?


I like this quote: " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

That's a start. Care to expound? What rules govern the formation of a hypothesis, for example? What about predictive value (which is missing from your statement altogether).

The latter sounds more accurate.

Very good. Gold star. Then WHY are you claiming that someone has to prove that torture is NEVER effective, rather than doing the actual job that science requires, which is for us to keep throwing data against it till it fails or continues to be supported. Right now, you've admitted it continues to be supported.

You've admitted that to support it does not require ALL data. You've admitted science doesn't require it to be PROVEN. You've admitted the purpose of analysis is to come up with scenarios with the potential to disprove it (like my scenario where you find examples of torture being unreliable).

Time after time, you've attempted to shift that burden. Your answers here demonstrate that you're at least now aware that the burden falls squarely on you to demonstrate it doesn't stand. Feel free to get off your tuchus and do so.