Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OldReliable Though he was making reference to reports of alien visitations, the late astronomer Carl Sagan's popular saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," seems to apply to the Lancet study as well. But that evidence was not made available, contrary to ordinary, much less extraordinary, practice. |
A couple points, in no particular order:
1) From a strictly abstract POV, I'm not sure that the notions of an "extraordinary claim" or "extraordinary evidence" are coherent. Who decides what qualifies? I think it should just be that
a posteriori claims are required to be supported by some evidence, and refuted by none. Sagan, and those that followed his path of attempting to influence public attitudes via the explication of attitudes and findings within the domain of science did a lot of harm. I have great respect for Sagan for other reasons, but I am disappointed in this part of his legacy.
2) So is the claim that some 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion extraordinary? Applying the general principle, I'm not sure the idea makes sense; who knows whether it's extraordinary or not? Is it
possible? Obivously so--it's possible that many, many more than that have died. So there are no
a priori reasons for rejecting it.
3) Is it likely? Looking at other wars, it certainly seems that this number wouldn't be entirely out of whack. Comparing to estimates of the number of civilians who died in other wars, it seems this number is in the ballpark of believability. It's been said that the greatest cause of error in the human race is forgetfulness. Every generation has a war, and every generation learns, after a lot of bloodshed, that war is something to be avoided--for this very reason.
4) In general, I think the methodology the authors claim to have used was sound, though there is a considerable amount of confusion about it. I think we have to keep in mind that this is a highly politically charged issue. If this is true, or (heaven forefend) if this number is actually low, then we have a serious lot of atoning to do. There is considerable psychological pressure to want to deny that we might be guilty of death on such a scale.
5) All of this said, though, some of the criticisms are valid. It would certainly be nice if the survey forms had been released to peer reviewers prior to publication. No need to release them to the public as the security concerns for the families surveyed are valid. But confidence in the study would be increased significantly if a group of six or ten other guys who understood the way these studies are supposed to be conducted came back and said "Yes, the raw data and the study methodology support the conclusion." To my knowledge, this didn't happen. So there is legitimate room for questioning these results. But just as I get the impression that the authors, once the study was completed, used the data to a political end, I get the impression that people who criticize the study do so for political ends as well.
6) Regardless of the actual number, I think we have to acknowledge that a lot of civilians have died as a result of our invasion. It's a very curious time when we can look at a number like 150,000 civilians killed with relief.