Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Path to 9/11: A Scorecard

Comments Filter:
  • Currently, your scale runs from "Very Likely Accurate" to "Very Likely Accurate", which isn't really much of a scale...

    I don't think I'd class the Atta screening issue as inaccurate, either: as you note, the incident did take place, just at a different point in his journey: I'd class that as 'mostly accurate', since it only errs in a more minor detail (which airport was the venue). Classing that as a 5 devalues the scale: if that's a 5, where would you put an entirely imagined incident?

    • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Currently, your scale runs from "Very Likely Accurate" to "Very Likely Accurate", which isn't really much of a scale...

      Obviously a typo.

      I don't think I'd class the Atta screening issue as inaccurate, either: as you note, the incident did take place, just at a different point in his journey: I'd class that as 'mostly accurate', since it only errs in a more minor detail (which airport was the venue).

      No. The claim I am measuring is that he was screened in Boston. That claim is false.

      Classing that as a 5 deva
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      I thought of an example that might help explain further what I am thinking here.

      Let's say the claim was "Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapon program immediately prior to the 2003 invasion." And then I said, "while true that Hussein had an active nuclear program prior to the 1991 Gulf War, and for some time after, there is no evidence of such a program in 2002 or 2003." Should I give that claim a 3? 4? 5? I think that claim should clearly be a 5. Yes, he had an active nuclear weapons program.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...