nerdgirl

Then there’s also a bio-physical factor: There’s been observed a link (correlation … possible causation) between increase in violent crime and lead poisoning in US cities in the late 1970s & 1980s and with the accompanying decrease in crime in the 1990s as exposure to lead has decreased (via elimination of lead in gasoline & paint). Lead … not gun availability or gun control. Lead not parents, tv, cable, the internet, etc. (See attached graph.) And this is contrasted with violence levels in the UK, which did not beginning eliminating lead until the mid-1980s and early 1990s and saw increase in violent crime in the 1990s. Popular press accounts and links to primary data here. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Re-reading some of the threads, we’ve got at least 4 different topics at play in this thread: closing Guantanamo detention facility, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and ineffectiveness of torture. I want be explicitly clear on the 93% figure I sited above, since I think I see some confusion, which in re-reading my quote above I can see how I helped perpetuate. The 93% refers to how terrorists groups end. That is 93% of terrorists groups ended by means other than military action. Only 7% of terrorists groups came to an end through military action (of any kind, conventional, COIN, or other.) The two means by which the majority of terrorist groups have been defeated or ended are (1) “they were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies” (40%), or (2) political absorption into government (43%), e.g., what happened in Northern Ireland with the IRA. Zero, none, nada, zilch, null, not a single one, was defeated using torture. I'm not aware of anyone who has done as robust a survey of how counterinsugencies end. The French is Algeria and the British in Malaya are the classic examples. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I nominate Nerdgirl! Thanks Don!

One of the resident SERE experts around here can fill in the history more fully and correct any innacuracies. The SERE training methods were largely derived from tactics used or believed used by North Koreans and Soviets. The training manual was intended as training doctrine to enable US soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines to develop skills to resist torture by our enemies ... it was *not* intended as an instruction manual for what we should do. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thank you very much for what I'm reading as intended as a supportive and complimentary reply.

Are you then asserting that the Marine Interogators I cited are lying or don't know about what they're speaking? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On what do you base that assertion? How would you substantiate it? Or put otherwise, how did you come to that conclusion with regard to interrogation? On the contrary, go see what the Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams asserts, after more than 7 *decades* of experience (it's the 2nd to last quote here. (Btw Who said "He's a Marine. 'Nuff said"?

I didn't imply that our military use overwhelming force or torture. I said they should do whatever is necessary. If that includes torture, so be it. And while torture may only work 7% of the time, it has proven to save American lives. Given the brutal nature of the enemy, I don't care what we do to them, as long as it makes them talk. (1) The 7% of the time refers to military action *not* to torture. (2) When has torture *ever* saved a single life? Ever? Just one instance ... On the contrary, use of torture puts American lives at risk. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Pro-Med – “the global electronic reporting system for outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases & toxins, open to all sources” – posting from Algeria on the subject. The posters are the metaphorical “boots on the ground” of emerging and re-emerging infectious disease. PRO/AH/EDR> Plague, fatal - Algeria (02): unconfirmed, RFI Date: Tue 20 Jan 2009 Source: Dr Saada Chougrani The information (rumor) about the outbreak occurred in mountainous borders between Tizi Ouzou and Bejaia was given by the daily paper in Arabic language "Echorouk" in its on-line edition of 6 Jan 2009 . No serious source, health professionals, even more the reference laboratory for plague in Oran (Laboratory for the Plague of the Institute Pasteur of Algeria in Oran) or that of in Algiers (medical bacteriology) had to take seriously these rumors. Furthermore, I would remind you of another bibliographical reference on the plague epidemic of 2003: Bertherat E, Bekhoucha S, Chougrani S, et al: Plague reappearance in Algeria after 50 years, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Oct [20 Jan 2009]. Available from . -- Dr Saada Chougrani University of Oran, Algeria The reference Dr. Chougrani cites is the same I linked in this post further up in the thread. Algiers El Nahar continues to report on the story … altho’ it’s gone in some anti-American conspiracy-theory –esque directions (more than UK’s The Sun or the Washington Times.) Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And thanks for yours.

Thank you for that! My 70-something mom was an ob-gyn nurse in the years before Roe v Wade. She has horror stories of the trauma women endured emotionally and physically because of the lack of legally available medical abortions -- back alley butchers who fucked with women’s minds and bodies … or just outright killed them -- and women (of all ages & marital status) who ended up killing &/or maiming themselves with bleach and ammonia, or wire coat hangers, or other improvised methods. Wealthy women back then went overseas for legal medical abortions. She also was an ob-gyn nurse in Tunisia with the Peace Corps – 2nd group that went out, for which I am very proud of her … & has a whole ‘nother story set from there. These days, she’s wants to go volunteer with the Dutch NGO “Women on Waves.”

Concur. And as has been demonstrated over-and-over again, the most effective methods to defeat insurgents and terrorists is not through traditional military action and not through torture, e.g., the failure of the French in Algeria. Less than 7% of terrorist groups active in the latter half of the 20th Century and first 7 years of this century were defeated by military action. Do you want to use the most effective methods, or are there other reasons you want to pursue ineffective methods? And while history is not predictive, we ignore(d) it at our own peril. The military is still needed though to occupy or divert attention of those that support these terror groups. There was no way to effectively do that without removing the Taliban from power, or by allowing Saddam to remain in power and still effectively force the hand of Iran, who is fighting three proxy wars, and losing the money to do so now that oil is cheap again. It's pretty evident that the broad-sword that is the military is very useful at uncovering all the roaches. Only after seeing where they run can we now determine the best course of action. Pakistan is clearly in a quiet cooperation over these missile strikes within their borders, and Iran is being tracked in their shipments to attempt resupply of Hamas and Hezbollah. The military can be an effective tool in executing political, as well as intelligence based objectives. Don’t disagree with much of what you wrote. However, it’s just not particularly relevant to my response in the context of [chuckakers] assertion implying conventional military methods using overwhelming force and use of torture are necessary methods to defeat insurgents or terrorists, to which I provided evidence that was wrong (at least 93% of the time). I’m all about that citable evidence and logical argumentation over rhetoric … in case ya hadn’t noticed. Use of asymmetric methods (e.g., terrorism) arises because an enemy recognizes they can’t win via traditional conventional methods, political or militarily. Also thought the Algeria reference (COL Galula) would have been obvious to you … mistaken assumption on my part. See my subsequent response to [FallingOsh]: “traditional military ops versus COIN” right before I boarded my plane in Houston Friday and my post above the one on ineffectiveness of waterboarding: it should be clearer. Perhaps the irony is that I don’t know of anyone in the DoD (beyond Doug Feith-era USD(P)-shop) beyond the voices on this board that argues for torture or ‘scorched earth’-esque methods. (I’m confident they’re out there … I just don’t ever see them.) Now if you want to argue the COL Gian Gentile-position, that’s different too. He’s emerged as an eloquent de facto spokesman for a 3rd perspective. That’s peer competitor prioritization versus unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency prioritization, largely w/r/t the MDAPs/POMs of USN/USAF vs USA/USMC (i.e., ships/planes vs ‘boots on the ground.’) Gross simplification … but distilled to the basics. I’m arguing from the Petraeus/Nagl/Kilcullen/Montgomery McFate/Steve Metz position. It’s been at least a month (I think?) since I’ve invoked SSTR/DoDD 3000.05/DoDD 3000.07. That last directive was delayed >6 months because Army Staff was non-concur, which is an illustration of the complexity that my analogy in the previous paragraph has broken down. The perspectives to which I replied (posts #157, #115 & #116) are arguing from the “Jack Bauer”/UC Berkeley Prof John Yoo/former USD Doug Feith position … remember how GEN Franks characterized the latter (p. 563)? (I know at least one dz.commer/semi-lurker does. ) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Let’s look more closely at the alleged waterboarding “success” story you cited. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Al Qa’eda’s chief of propaganda operations. Very bad person. Likely source of intelligence, needed to be apprehended, and removed from society. Two critical questions: (1) Was it interrogation by torture that led to obtaining useful information as you assert? (2) Was information obtained via interrogation by torture useful? If you review the DefenseLink transcript listing of things he confessed to (that have been publically released) – from a plot to assassinate former President Carter to a plot to kill Pope John Paul II to the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center – he confessed to everything. Some of the things he claimed to have been responsible would have required him to be in multiple places at the same time. I only somewhat facetiously ask Was he asked if he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in November 1963? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also compares himself to President George Washington – is that what you mean by "productive"? What proved to be the single largest source of intelligence obtained from KSM? A computer hard drive seized during KSM’s capture. (So it wasn’t any part of the interrogation, empathetic, ‘enhanced,’ or torture.) If you read the transcript, it’s less than clear what motivated his alleged assertions. At least one expert, forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., who specializes in false confessions, “observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment.” During testimony, the CIA official cautioned that “many of Mohammed’s claims during interrogation were ‘white noise’ designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day’s interrogation session.” Of what was later confirmed to be accurate, what percentage was actually obtained through ‘enhanced interrogation’? And more importantly, what *was* missed or was lost because of ‘enhanced interrogation’? How much time, energy, & expense were wasted following up on false confessions? It is just – if not more – reasonable & supported by evidence and experts that more information useful to save US lives may have been obtained if he was NOT subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation.’ That’s the core of the effectiveness argument; effective interrogation techniques should be employed. Torture is not effective. How about the 2nd detainee who the CIA has confirmed was waterboarded: Abu Zubaydah. Of what was cited as useful intelligence gained from Abu Zubaydah, the leading piece that is mentioned – the identity of Ramzi bin al Shibh – was already known. FBI agent Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002, i.e., a month before Abu Zubaydah was even apprehended. So yes, Abu Zubaydah did confirm what was already known. Is there any evidence to suggest that ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques were critical for the tertiary confirmation? No. You didn’t mention Abd al Rahim al Nashiri. You may know that al Nashiri was the 3rd terrorist suspect on whom the former CIA Director acknowledged “enhanced interrogation” techniques were used including waterboarding. How accurate and useful was the information obtained from al Nashiri? Again from reading the Defenselink transcript, he asserts he made up a long list of al Qa’eda plots and attacks so his captors would stop torturing him, even telling interrogators that Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. Al Nashiri, in all likelihood, had very useful information. What was lost & how many opportunities were wasted because ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods were used? When the signal to noise ratio becomes so low, it ceases to be effective for anything other than distracting US investigatory efforts. ~~~ ~ ~~~ Summary on ineffectiveness of waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture: In the 3 cases in which CIA has acknowledged use of waterboarding (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, & Abd al Rahim al Nashiri) it is unclear to dubious that “enhanced interrogation” did anything that traditional interrogation would not have. To the contrary, there is significant evidence that “enhanced interrogation” led to reams of false confessions, which took away time & resources, and may have undermined the useful intel for prosecution. (2) In at least three real-world “ticking time bomb” scenarios, useful intelligence has been gained without the use of “enhanced interrogation,” waterboarding, or torture. (3) Bad information obtained through torture by thirdparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi. (4) At least 60 years of operators, across multiple agencies have observed the ineffectiveness of torture in interrogation. Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments against torture (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. One may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions. If you really want to advocate for effective tools for protecting the Republic and saving American and allies lives (e.g., like the intelligence and interrogation methods that were successfully employed to eliminate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2006), look to what the US military recognizes: torture is ineffective as a means of interrogation and such a policy puts US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and US foreign nationals, such as defense and intelligence civilians deployed at greater risk (than they already are). Supporting the troops means opposing all use of torture. All. By all. Against all. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you guys think these guys are idiots, liberal pussies, living in an alternate reality, showing weakness, wasting time, making bogus arguments, or using the methods aren’t working? And on what basis do you know more than they do? The guy who has suggested that we should negotiate with the Taliban “I do think you have to talk to enemies”? Or the guys who wrote “Focus on protecting civilians over killing the enemy. Assume greater risk. Use minimum, not maximum force”? W/r/t diplomacy, they’ve noted “The very fact that Pakistan serves as a sanctuary for the Taliban and al Qaeda makes regional diplomacy far more necessary than it was in Iraq.” (One of those guys also co-wrote this.) They’ve also written under the heading “Some of the best weapons do not shoot”: “Although all development is critical in this impoverished country, roads are the single most important path to success in Afghanistan. In Ghazni province last summer, one of us spoke with an Afghan road builder whose shirt was covered in dried blood. He’d been shot by the Taliban a day earlier for working with the coalition, but he was back the next morning with his paving crew because he thought that finishing that road was the best way to bolster security in his village. Indeed, the U.S. general who was critical of U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan pointed at Afghanistan’s ring road from the window of his Black Hawk helicopter, and declared, ‘Where the road ends, the Taliban begins.’” On the use of overwhelming kinetic means, under the heading “Sometimes the more force is used, the less effective it is”: “Bombs—even “smart” bombs—are blunt instruments, and they inevitably kill people other than their intended targets. Each civilian death at the hands of the coalition further diminishes the finite amount of goodwill toward the United States among the Afghan people. Each civilian death undermines the legitimacy of the Afghan government the United States seeks to support. Each civilian death, when refracted through the Taliban’s propaganda campaign, strengthens the narrative of America’s enemies.” More on what he calls [url http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519.html]paradoxes: “Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is. The more force applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. Using substantial force also increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda to portray lethal military activities as brutal. In contrast, using force precisely and discriminately strengthens the rule of law that needs to be established.” Rule of law. He also writes about the importance of economic development. Or the guy who said “recognition that you can’t kill or capture your way out of a complex, industrial-strength insurgency” is critical in Afghanistan? He also said “the challenge in Afghanistan, of course, is figuring out how to create the conditions that enable reconciliation.” Or the guy who adopted the motto “No better friend, no worse enemy-First Do No Harm”? Or the guy who said “We don’t have to become our enemies to defeat them” and “Respect, rapport, hope, cunning, and deception are our tools”? Or the guy who has challenged publically the usefulness of information obtained at Guantanamo by waterboarding or other “enhanced interrogation means”? Or the guy who said "I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer"? Or the guy who said: use of torture and Orwellian-“enhanced interrogation” has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad and “So you can’t underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests”? Or this guy? Or these guys, whose journal masthead reflects their experience and opinion: “…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them” ? Or the guys who wrote: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort”? (warning: large pdf file) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, the argument comes down to traditional military operations versus counterinsurgency/counter-terrorism operations. Sorry, I have to board a plane or I would write more. (And you know that's not a cop-out from me. ) Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. On what basis do you make that suggestion that studies that aren't blind are prone to bias? How is temperature a subjective variable? While I've sent the the Nature paper & supplementary data to one person, I haven't read it. (You may have your own method of accessing it.) Have you? I'm estimating that the observors used validated models. What you're describing would have rejected. If the interpolation is not both validated and reasonable within constraints of known science, it's not included. It's not about "belief" or dis-belief. If the authors selectively excluding data because it the validated model generated results that they didn't like or they wanted to get a specific result, that would be bias. (Ironically, that was what McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did it their challenge of Mann's method.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. And as has been demonstrated over-and-over again, the most effective methods to defeat insurgents and terrorists is not through traditional military action and not through torture, e.g., the failure of the French in Algeria. Less than 7% of terrorist groups active in the latter half of the 20th Century and first 7 years of this century were defeated by military action. Do you want to use the most effective methods, or are there other reasons you want to pursue ineffective methods? And while history is not predictive, we ignore(d) it at our own peril. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What Dan said + additionally in order to do a double-blind study we need a second system - 2nd planet or minimally 2nd Antartica. That's the 2nd part of "double." There is a school of thought called "post modern deconstructionalism." About 10 years ago the post-modernists took the theoretical ideas and extended them beyond the limits of the social science theory, which was originally developed in the 1950s for critiquing literature and culture. So about 10 years, these folks started talking about deconstructing experimental science. Now if one is looking at the practice of science by humas, e.g., the classic example is discussed the books: The Mismeasure of Man, one can find where greed, cultural assumptions, and other human biases have impacted the conclusions to which humans came. What became problematic was when the postmodernists started trying to apply it to physical science data. They began to challenge the objectivity of everything. Eventually these folks invoked superficial notions on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and string theory. And they started pontificating (intentional choice of word) about the ‘subjectivity’ of science. One can find examples (too many im-ever-ho) of the intentional mis-use of science for profit, greed, or harm … but that’s the humans not the data and not science. This ‘subjectivity of science’ argument exploded (metaphorically) in their faces when an intentionally farcical article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," by another well-regarded, award-winning physicist, Prof Alan D. Sokol (NYU), was published in the leading cultural studies journal with such absurdities such as "pi is an integer.” It would be curious to do a case study comparison on the postmoderninsts proponents and detractors and those involved in the anthropogenic climate change debates.

For clarification: what do you think is the way he feels? And on what basis do you know that? What in Rev Lowery's history suggests that? Other than the 75-word selective edit circulating the blog-o-sphere with partisan incendiary commentary, what do you knwo about him? (And feel free to prove me wrong by telling me about your involvement in the Montgomery bus boycott or Selma to Montgomery march - I'll believe you ... because underestimating the history and behaviors of folks here is a dangerous activity.) As I wrote, I acknowledge that if "I try to step back and instead view the benediction from a perspective of one who is/was offended by his words. If one only read that 75-word excerpt out of context or from a different context than I did, yes, I can see how someone might find that to be offensive." Removing words like (laughter) and whole phrases is not selective editing? And circulating that without the rest is not selective? Illustrative comparison, imagine removing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" from 2nd Amendment, is that selective editing? (Yes, it is too.) But let's go back to your earlier tactic: what in my response was "spin"? Rather than just tossing out a 1-liner, where is the argument invalid? Show me where there are holes in my argument. I get to learn then. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Marc - are you going to apply the same standard you advocate for other pieces to that one? Where's the experimental data? What's the method? Is there evidence of deceit in the conclusions? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

"Spin" ... wow ... sad. You ask a question. I respond honestly. You don't like the response you get so, it's "spin." That's the problem - I don't do spin. How do defend selectively editing 75 words and circulating them around internet? Is that 'angular momentum'? Looks like it didn't take long for you to fulfill my closing words: "Do I hope that some folks might increase their empathy and recognition that words do matter? Yes. Am I going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen? No." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As far as the affirmative action argument, iirc a thread here a few months ago failed to bring forth any (?) affirmative action programs remaining. Public colleges can’t do it. The federal government doesn’t do it in hiring. The State of Georgia doesn’t in hiring. Private organizations & individuals can to some extent, just as private organizations & individuals can discriminate to some extent, e.g., Augusta Golf Club. How much is it just another strawman? There’s seems to be lot of confusion, misconceptions, and mis-information about what remains of affirmative action, especially regarding federal preferences. W/r/t minority preferences federally, most recently (literally less than 2 months ago) a federal court declared unconstitutional a DoD program that gave an optional (i.e., non-mandated) contracting preference to a minority-owned business. Rothe Development Corp of Texas challenged the Air Force’s decision to re-compete and award a contract to another company, International Computer Telecommunications, which offered a bid $180k higher than Rothe Corp. ICT is an Asian-owned company and, perhaps ironically, a woman owns the litigant, Rothe. The only two agencies to have formal preferences for women-owned businesses are the small-business administration and Dept of Transportation. “Preferences.” That sounds like a big deal. Sounds like an advantage. “Woman-Owned Business" is not on the list of entities currently receiving procurement preferences on prime contracts. For prime contracts who do get preferences: If the woman happens to be a Service Disabled Veteran, or if the company qualifies for HUBZONE Certification, or 8(a) or SDB Certification, then the business may get those preferences. There is a goal, typically around 5% – *not* a requirement -- for contracting with woman-owned businesses but no preference. How about that SBA 8(m) “preference”? The law was passed in 2000 … but there was no action by the Executive Branch to incorporate that law into regulatory frameworks. A “final rule” was never issued. Therefore no preferences. Contracting is done through Executive Agencies. Congress didn’t object. There are procurement regulations that call for “goals established in the agency's annual small business preference plan for small, small disadvantaged, 8(a), and women-owned small businesses,” – here’s one from the USDA “Goals.” Try to find something on consequences for failing to fulfill those goals. Now one may see words like “women and minorities highly encouraged to apply,” but there is no requirement that the funding agency or hiring agency *act* on it. As a woman in a science field, a physical science field, I remember hearing rumors, derisive allegations, and condescending hearsay about “all the affirmative action programs” for women in science. If someone can find one, please point me toward it. Really! Of course, we’ve probably all heard occasional stories about that “bitch” who got the job because she was a women … apparently that’s one of those remarkable exceptions to the call for personal responsibility. It’s never the guy who didn’t get the job’s fault or bad luck or responsibility … it’s some or some . VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

My reasoning for opposing affirmative is multi-faceted. For me in working through and weighing the ethical arguments, the sides to which the scales of justice tilt varies from high ethics (normative ethics/ideals) to applied ethics. It’s in the backlash innuendos and consequences that perpetuate doubt on the capabilities of minorities and women in which I find the crucial argument against affirmative action. (One could speculate that those who are most likely to cast doubt that “he only got there because they needed a minority” or “she was included only because they needed a woman candidate,” are probably the same ones explicitly or tacitly perpetuating the persistent negative discrimination against minorities &/or women?) What I quoted above is reasonable argument, if there weren't tipping points. Tipping points come in a variety of different forms, imo -- getting enough women in a field so that they're no longer exceptions/exceptional, getting enough men in a field to the point at which they're grandfathers and they get annoyed at the discrimination their granddaughters face (that was the method at Stanford's SLAC), etc. In the end, I don't support race- or sex-based affirmative action hiring or promotion. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Open discussions? I don't understand that. To be science, whether experimental or theoretical, a basic requirement to be considered science is that it be public. That's the basis of the publication system. Do you mean open discussions of experiments versus models? While I don't know specifically how the researchers developed the model used to derive the results in the article being discussed, models have to be tested against known data. Run old date for which the outcome is known through the model; if what comes out does not match the observed results (experiment), then it's thrown out. That's validation. For some science, one can develop a model and do the experiment in a laboratory. For some science, one can't do the experiment for a variety of reasons. E.g., in the development of medical countermeasures against smallpox, anthrax, the plague, etc, scientists can't intentionally infect humans with those diseases to test efficacy of potential candidates. In that case, model systems are used, typically guinea pigs and non-human primates (NHP). You might be surprised sometimes how few model animals (NHPs) are in the tests. For certain high-energy physics and astrophysics, in order to test the model experimentally one would have to re-start the Universe ... or destroy it. With climate change models, the experiment requires intentionally impacting the environment with the potential for long term consequences for generations of humans. Some would argue that we are the experiment in progress. We don't have a 2nd or 3rd Earth to do the experiments. So instead, one relies on validated models. Does that make sense? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It has been offered. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying