The Washington Post ran a column in the July 30, 2007 edition about how Bush justifies his big screw-up in Iraq. According to the author he uses "counterfactual" reasoning in which he runs an alternate view of history, one in which Saddam Hussein remains in power, and then, not surprisingly concludes that the world is better off without him in power. The problem is, as the column's author points out, that is absolutely no way to test his theory since you can't go back in time.
According to the author there has been a book published on how political "experts" make decisions. The book divides such experts up into one group called "hedgehogs" and the other group called "foxes." Hedgehogs often use counterfactual reasoning and are more partisan than foxes who don't rely on counterfactual reasoning nearly as often. Hedgehogs tend to sometimes be spectacularly right but can also be spectacularly wrong. Guess which category Bush's decision about Iraq falls into?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment