Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:53:33AM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
>
> > Paul M Foster wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:35:35PM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
>snip
> I was thinking about this last night. It occurs to me that what we're
> calling "profiling" is really inductive or deductive reasoning
> (depending on the circumstances). Sherlock Holmes was the master of
> this. Scientific inquiry is pulled along by this as well. In the absence
> of plain and clear facts, one must rely on probabilities and tendencies.
>
No, inductive and deductive reasoning have nothing to do with
statistics. If profiling is a screening mechanism, it must have known
qualitative and quantitative error rates. If you can find me even the
semblance of a scientific study that shows racial profiling as a
screening tool with qualitative and quantitative accuracy rates
approaching 90%, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm sure
it won't be there.
We'll skip the inappropriate application of it, for now. You don't
perform a pap smear on a man. We'll deal with that later.
>snip
> Actually, I don't know what to do about the terrorists in this country.
> It could be that we had all the info we needed to capture them, and that
> if governmental agencies had shared what they knew, we would have
> prevented the disaster. If I could be reasonably sure that our intel and
> information sharing would prevent future occurrences, I'd say don't
> change a thing. I simply don't have enough information.
We will never be reasonably sure. Never have been. It's the nature and
burden of living in a free society. I guess we can go under some form
of martial law for awhile and pucker up our borders. We certainly could
be very preventative. While were at it, we might as well buy a
truckload of bottled water and train our dog to fetch and open our
mail. Frankly, I think we're alright for now. Less fearful of using
our military. More aware of our good fortunes. More aware in general.
Yea, I'm mad as hell about what is happening. I'm pissed off that this
wasn't prevented. The gov't is reacting very well now. I would love to
have a better proactive program. I just don't want any racial
McCarthyism.
>
> Though I see little merit in the arguments I've heard so far, I'll go so
> far as to reverse my original statement that we should track Arabs in
> this country. But I would like to hear something else that soothes my
> sense of insecurity in this environment.
>
Don't do me any favors. Just provide some reasonable merit to your
arguments for racial profiling. If you can find a reasonably scientific
paper on racial profiling as suggested above, I'll be stomping in rhythm
with you. But be assured, I will look for any fallacious conclusions.
As far as soothing insecurity, we all have that virus right now. Give
me a couple of shots of scotch and I'll start spewing indiscriminate
invectives at the tv set. It's right there under the surface. But we
can't give in. Even this shall pass.
> Understand something: my first reaction to situations like this is
> militaristic-- action and justice, swift and merciless. This works
> extremely well on the battlefield, but is a little savage for civilian
> life. As a result, I have to mediate my reactions to a lot of
> situations, including this one. I just didn't do it fast enough here.
I'm with you here. I wish we all could get to pull the trigger.
-Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:42:36 EDT