But They Are Both Experts
Michael Yon makes some observations about two pundits debating Iraq.
This morning I watched the television screen in Mosul as Kagan and Rosen debated Iraq, hosted by Jim Lehrer. Kagan’s statements were entirely consistent with what I see and hear unfolding here. By comparison, Rosen came across as a new Baghdad Bob. While he might be articulate, well dressed and highly credentialed, Rosen’s characterizations of the situation were at best inconsistent with ground-based realities, and at worst completely false . Kagan is worth listening to. Nir Rosen is not.
Being as they are experts, they have access to the truth, and therefore, should agree. Im confused. Someone help me out. How can experts disagree about the truth?
March 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Oh, I get it… Michael Yon is God and he decides who is right and wrong in the situation. That easily trumps the “expert” card. I’m so happy we have Michael Yon to help us out. I mean, that entire paragraph was full of facts disputing where Rosen is wrong and his argument is so well captured by pulling the “what I see” card.
Try harder Steve.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:58 am
I see this as more a problem for you than for me. If you really had such a problem with experts you have absolutely no basis for believing that there is any historical evidence one way or another in regards to whether communism has actually caused human suffering or not. You love relying on numbers like “40 million” or “95 million”, handed down to you by the grace of expert analysis, being the absolute and final truth. I’m more likely to rely on meta-analysis, multiple sources, ect.
You -rely- on experts for information (especially in the realm of something like history) just as much as I do, you’re just narrower in the scope of experts you draw from, limiting yourself to a narrower world view. If you really have such a problem with experts, you’re a bit like chairman Mao - taking the word of a single ‘expert’ in isolation without listening to what the other experts have to say.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jamie
Michael is in Iraq and has been for years. Rosen is not.
Michael reported first hand extensively from Mosul in 2005 and has been back to Mosul this year, he spent February there.
Rosen has not.
Fred Kagen has been to Iraq and Yon made it clear that some of Kagen’s assumptions at times were also wrong even though Kagen got it right this time.
Michael Yon isn’t God, but if I m living in New York, and have been for months,if not years, and some “credentialed expert” who hasn’t set foot in my city, is located halfway around the world making inconsistent and false statements about where I live, then I too will let the world know who is being honest and who is lying, who is right and who is wrong.
If you can’t grasp that simple concept then go back to your village because they called and said their IDIOT is missing!!
Try Harder Steve!
March 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Oh, so you’ll defer to someone’s judgment on something too broad and diffuse to be directly observable by one person, just because they have observed some small component of it directly? Does this mean you would defer to the judgment of my extremely liberal sister in regards to Universal Health Care because she has lived in France?
March 13th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Cute statement about the village. I’ve seen that bumper sticker as well. At least you’re original….. Oops.
Eyewitness accounts are not gold-standard data. “Seeing what you WANT to see,” is not simply a well-worn cliche (though I’m sure you’d probably try to pass it off as a joke). The truth about the “I was there” argument is that it carries more weight than it should. It is impossible to be everywhere in a country at each and every point in time, so it is impossible for one’s observations to speak for an entire country. I have lived in 4 states and traveled extensively around this country. That being said, I’m sure there is someone abroad who understands as much about the escalating violence in South Central LA as I do.
(Insert witty, unoriginal joke trying to insult someone’s intelligence level here)
March 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Really I’m not committed to the precise number of 40 million. Thats the convenience of such a crappy government\economic system, it kills so many people that precise numbers are not needed to comprehend just how bad the system is.
I prefer to think in terms of shit tons. Communism in China killed shit tons upon shit tons of people. But why are we talking about communism, you don’t care anyway.
As to this expert thing. My point here is that experts disagree on the facts. This is problematic for your position and helpful for mine because it shows one can’t simply rely on an expert. One must do some kind of assessment on the expert prior to relying on information from an expert.
This is often not the case when experts are invoked for resolution of some argument. Most often experts are invoked not because they pass some kind of assessment of competence, but because their advice supports what the arguer wants to say. As stated before, experts are ordinary people with a refined sense of taste in some domain of knowledge. If the expert’s refined taste supports your position you will call him in defense of your position and when he does not you will ignore him.
Well then experts fall back into the same column as everyone else. People with opinions. A conclusion I suspect you will be less inclined to agree with than me.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Hmm. Did you actually just say anything here or just blather out a bunch of points that you’ve already been beaten on?
March 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“One must do some kind of assessment on the expert prior to relying on information from an expert.”
What if my assessment concludes something different than your assessment?