Originally posted by Mysti-ken: I am particularly distressed at the state of the media, again making no distinctions at to which side they support; the lines between reporting, commentary, editorial and opinion are so blurred as to make the product meaningless.
The accumulated mass of unsubstantiated, unreasoned and fallacious arguments on both sides is absolutely daunting.
True
Quotable..but. What is unique is the war itself. Unprecidented in that it is against a movement not a nation. Standard rules do not apply. It is early in this war...too much info must be kept from public (compromised intell, compromised relations with UN..ala oil for food scam & bought UNSC vetos). Too little known about the extent of the jihaddist movement, their resources, or worldwide support or commitment to deal with it.
From a scientific standpoint..CLEARLY too many variables to reach any conclusion. So scientists draw up a hypothesis...and test fit data to the hypothesis or as you described "directed at making the so-called "facts" fit their pre-existing set of beliefs". I would argue that this is not ness bad when their is insufficient data, rather it is an accepted scientific process. Only bad when data can no longer fit your model and must try to force fit. Niether side has reached this point...so the standard debate process is not going to solve this one.
Further, most citizens are very limited in knowlege of military stategy and jihaddism anyway....basically are "untrained scientists" and are highly suceptable to junk data. This is where media could help..but has done a fairly poor job.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
