Interesting knockabout stuff from two people who’ve decided to take it up a notch in terms of Great Weblog Comments Battles and duke it out in public on Daniel Drezner’s site with $100 at stake. The battle is over the subject “Did Bush Say That Iraq Was An Imminent Threat Or Not?”.
As far as I can tell, the case for the defence is that Bush specifically said that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat, but that it was about to become an imminent threat and he didn’t propose to wait until it became imminent.
In other words, Bush does appear to be committed to the claim “Event I’ is imminent”, where I’ is defined as “the event of event I becoming imminent” and I is defined as “Iraq being a threat”. Which means to me that this particular line of argument turns on the question of whether “imminent” is a transitive predicate, or in other words, if something will imminently become imminent, does that mean that it’s imminent now?
My guess is that “imminent” is a short-transitive predicate; it’s transitive so long as the chain of “imminents” isn’t too long. Short-transitivity is a somewhat controversial logical property, however, albeit one which would be fantastically useful for economists in making axiomatic theories of revealed preference if it could be put on a rigorous footing. I’ll leave the matter to our resident expert on the subject, Mr Weatherson.
Erratum: “Mr Weatherson” presumably calls himself “Dr Weatherson” or “Professor Weatherson” in his correspondence, since he is both. But I’m a plain-speaking man of the people, with a pathological fear of academic titles used in civilian life, so there you go.
Lots of fancy word play here but “imminent” for me means about to take place. And soon. In that sense Bush did say that Iraq was soon to become a major threat. N. Korea, as an example, is member of Axis of Evil but was not declared an imminent threat because we could, it was implied, chat with them to reduce threat level. Not so with Iraq because they had booted out the inspectors, thus making them threatening as to their intentions. Was American thus truly threatened? No. Was Saddam aiding terrorists?Well, if not Osama’s gang, we know through his own admissions that he paid 25 thousand per family for sucide bombers (against Israel), and that we listed Hamas as terror group.
“axiomatic theories of revealed preference”
You people talk that way?
Sebastian Holsclaw and Jonathan Schwarz are debating this very question over at Daniel Drezner’s blog. This link: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000816.html will take you to the beginning of the debate.
As indeed will the link at the beginning of the post, so now CT readers have a choice of links.
Per the dsquared erratum:
I’m of the old school, and hold that the title “Doctor” should be reserved for theologians.
Some would put economists into that category, but not I.
You gotta wonder about some of our worthy conservative blogosphere mates. This is an argument that they shouldn’t even have started, let alone got so passionate about.
Because in a political sense, they just can’t win. I’m sure Rove would just as soon not have the SOTU dredged up, because while they’re finely parsing it the rest of us are looking at the quotes and thinking how hysterical commies-at-the-door the whole tone of the thing was.
And putting aside things Condi or Big Time Dick said, just because they didn’t come from Lord Dauphin himself, are exactly the type of technicalities that really disgust people- especially conservatives- when they are exposed in our judicial system.
Didn’t they learn anything from the whole “definition of what ‘is’ is” mess??? Nobody cared what the answer was, because they were so taken aback by the sleazy air of the defense itself.
So regardless of the “victor” the loser will be Bush. His is an administration that depends upon the short memory of the voting public. Dredging up stuff of even 6 months ago will do them no good.
As a rule I’m happy to go by any title more polite (or at least no less impolite) than ‘that bastard’, so Mr is more than enough.
It’s hard to see how a concept of ‘almost transitivity’ could be worked out coherently. Here’s the best I can do off the top of my head.
Let’s say we’re working in a logic where the truth value of any proposition need not be 1 (i.e. true) or 0 (i.e. false) but can be some value in between. There’s plenty of logics like this, and while I don’t like them at all, they have lots of adherents. So any sentence S has a truth value v(S), which is higher the truer S is. The falsity value f(S) can be defined as 1-v(S). Within such a framework we can define a concept of almost transitivity:
R is almost transitive iff for all a,b,c f(aRc) is less than or equal to f(aRb) + f(bRc). This is weaker than transitivity, and it’s plausible that ‘imminent’ is almost transitive.
I’d be rather embarrassed if defending my position required appeal to wacky logical concepts like these. But it seems pretty clear that embarrassment is no problem for the defenders of the Bush/Blair line, so in a friendly spirit I offer them this proposal.
D’oh! Sorry DD, forgot the beginning of the post before I got to the end.
OK, on behalf of the left I admit that Bush did not intend us to believe the danger was imminent. As theological hairsplitters know, “imminent” means “about to take place”, while “immanent” means “already present everywhere”. Clearly the message was that the threat was “immanent”, or already existent. The war has not removed this threat, though, but it has instilled fear everywhere the threat supposedly exists.
Fuzzy logic, right? Daniel has been spending too much time with the philosophers.
In the context of the actual political argument, what’s primarily significant is the whole swarm of administration statements about Saddam’s threat during the runup to the war vote in September 02. (And secondarily, the statements during the period between the war vote and the actual war).
Not just the statements in which the word “imminent” was actually used. In at least one place Bush specifically disavowed that word. But elsewhere we were repeatedly given the impression that a WMD attack on the US itself might be possible at any time. The scaremongering may not have included many clear and definite statements, but that was the gist of it, and it was disseminated very aggressively.
To me, when the defenders of the original scare campaign rely on its vagueness and confusion to defend it — and that is what they’re doing — it really compounds the original dishonesty.
In the same way, people will claim that juxtaposing photos of Saddam and Sen. Cleland, for example, was not definitely saying that there was a relationship between the two. And no, it wasn’t, but it’s not less reprehensible. If anything, it’s more so.
“Not so with Iraq because they had booted out the inspectors, thus making them threatening as to their intentions.”
Freddie, when did Saddam do this?
IIRC, the inspectors were withdrawn before Desert Fox, and were re-admitted when in 2002 (or ‘03).
This looks like a straight-forward anti-Sorites kind of argument to me… “imminent” is very similar to “really close”, which is not strictly transitive unless it allows Providence to be “really close” to Taiwan.
But like you say, this a short chain… so while the principle you say Bush is committed to (that “imminent” is not transitive) looks true, the whole story is somewhat more dubious.
While I appreciate a good linguistic parsing, from my discipline the answer to what Bush claimed about WMDs, threats, links to terrorists ,etc., i.e. his persuasive intent, seems quite clear. From an entry on Rhetorica last week in regard to his UN address prior to the war:
“Literalists will argue that Bush never said in so many words yadda yadda yadda. This willfully misunderstands rhetoric. Bush didn’t have to say it in so many words. The pathos and enthymemes of the speech did the persuading. Aristotle, 2,300 years ago, demonstrated how to get an audience to complete an argument by adding in the stuff that isn’t specifically said.”
Now if only all that intellectual firepower was involved in debating a proposition like, The US government has secretly believed for ten years that Iraq is an Al Qaeda sponsor, and has acted accordingly throughout that time. (Exhibit A for the affirmative side being comment 5 here.)
Enthymemes is the word of the day. It showed up somewhere else (Calpundit or Yglesias). It’s a pity the concept isn’t more widely diffused.
Zizka…The Rhetorica Network is dedicated to disseminating basic knowledge of rhetoric. Check out the Critical Meter and the Rhetoric Primer.
Unusual ideas can make enemies.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review