Liquid Bomb plot

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, you are making assumptions. Why do you believe that the authorities have not altered there perception of the probability that such an attack might occur.

It's not my job to disprove every idea you come up with. If you think that's the case you should take up the burden of proof and explain how it's sheer coincidence that the "altered perception" leading to the liquids ban just happened to coincide precisely with a beat-up about jihadist fantasists hatching an impossible bomb plot.

All of them have the final say. There is nothing stopping them from banning liquids irrespective of whether the government has justified their restrictions to your satisfaction or not.

It was Phantomwolf who kept making some argument or other based on the idea that it was all the various airlines' of the world's idea, and that the TSA and similar bodies were just helplessly following the dictates of the airline companies.

I guess you're trying to help Phantomwolf out by arguing "Well, yeah, it's actually government policy not airline policy at all, but if it wasn't government policy, the airlines might have done it of their own accord! So it's all the same!". Either way it's pretty odd.

 

[gtc]

It's not my job to disprove every idea you come up with. If you think that's the case you should take up the burden of proof and explain how it's sheer coincidence that the "altered perception" leading to the liquids ban just happened to coincide precisely with a beat-up about jihadist fantasists hatching an impossible bomb plot.

You have this around the wrong way. You claim that you have proved that the security regime is not based on a rational and informed assessment of the real dangers. That means that you have eliminated all other possibilities. If you can't eliminate the possibility that I raise then you can't prove your cliam.

While that is true so far as it goes, those three factors to prove (I think) that the current airline security regime cannot be based on a rational and informed assessment of the real dangers

My point about the airlines having the final say about security is simply this. You claim that the security services have not justified their ban on liquids to your satisfaction and that the burden of proof should be on them to justify the ban. I claim that this is fairly irrelevant as the airlines are private enterprises and if they don't want you taking liquids onboard you can't.

The analogy is that you can argue that the Australian government shouldn't ban R-rated shows on free to air TV (I believe such a ban exists) without suffient justification. However, asking them to justify the ban won't do any good if the private broadcasters have no interest in showing such movies.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You have this around the wrong way. You claim that you have proved that the security regime is not based on a rational and informed assessment of the real dangers. That means that you have eliminated all other possibilities. If you can't eliminate the possibility that I raise then you can't prove your cliam.

Okay, I'll agree with that. I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that just at the very same moment the Lucozade plotters hit the media, by sheer coincidence somebody somewhere had a "Eureka!" moment and realised that liquids on planes were a credible threat after all. I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that the professional chemists who have spoken out about exactly why liquid bombs are not a significant threat all goofed, and I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that outfits like the TSA are basing their rules on good science even though they refuse to justify their rules when questioned.

I just think you have to be deeply irrational to cling to that scenario.

My point about the airlines having the final say about security is simply this. You claim that the security services have not justified their ban on liquids to your satisfaction and that the burden of proof should be on them to justify the ban. I claim that this is fairly irrelevant as the airlines are private enterprises and if they don't want you taking liquids onboard you can't.

The analogy is that you can argue that the Australian government shouldn't ban R-rated shows on free to air TV (I believe such a ban exists) without suffient justification. However, asking them to justify the ban won't do any good if the private broadcasters have no interest in showing such movies.

Well, sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Can you prove absolutely that every single airline in the world would enact exactly the same restrictions on liquids in the absence of government rules?

 

[gtc]

Okay, I'll agree with that. I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that just at the very same moment the Lucozade plotters hit the media, by sheer coincidence somebody somewhere had a "Eureka!" moment and realised that liquids on planes were a credible threat after all.

You have misinterpreted me. I was suggesting that the existence of the plot might have been the catalyst for them to reassess the odds.

Well, sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Can you prove absolutely that every single airline in the world would enact exactly the same restrictions on liquids in the absence of government rules?

Of course not. But I can't see how that is relevant to the discussion. As it is not my contention that such would occur; it seems that you are just trying to spring some sort of logical trap.

 

[Kestrel]

I see. I may come to aspects of that later, but in fairness I was making a specific point about Kestrel’s argument above, which seems to run thusly:

• In this case, the plotters were still a long way from bringing their plan to fruition. In fact, it’s somewhat doubtful whether they’d ever have managed to do so.
• Therefore, the highlighting of the plot and the subsequent security measures were merely a cynical ploy for the purposes of “keeping… citizens… cowering in fear.”

I merely wished to point out that – even if the conclusion transpires to be true – this argument for it is something of a non sequitur.

In this case, they took a plot that at best was in the planing stage and had little chance of success and presented it as an imminent threat. If this was the only time, it might be appropriate to forgive the mistake. But when you look at the history since 9/11, almost every time an official warning came out of Washington, it has turned out to be based on nothing but hunches and rumors. In some cases, such as the Terrorist Dry Runs memo, the warning was full of information known to be false.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You have misinterpreted me. I was suggesting that the existence of the plot might have been the catalyst for them to reassess the odds.

How do you think that worked, exactly? Can you walk us through the logical steps you think they must have traced, to be "catalysed" by the Lucozade plot and get to the conclusion that the current liquids restrictions were the best way to keep everyone safe?

Of course not. But I can't see how that is relevant to the discussion. As it is not my contention that such would occur; it seems that you are just trying to spring some sort of logical trap.

I'm pointing out two things. Firstly that you have no evidence things would work out the way you say. Secondly that you insist on absolute proof from others when it suits you, but happily make claims you can't even begin to support when that suits you instead.

 

[gtc]

I have tried to show you that your statement:

We've proven it's not based on rationality and evidence, so there's no grounds to assume that it's perfect until shown otherwise.

Is wrong. Because you haven't proved its not based on rationality because you haven't ruled out the alternatives.

However, what you have shown is that you can't follow a discussion and can't construct a logical argument. I would try to explain for the umpteenth time or tell you to read the thread again, but I don't think you will realise your errors. So I can't see any point continuing this discussion.

You are of course, free to believe anything about the security regime or the quality of my arguments. I seriously doubt that what you believe will have any bearing on reality. So be it.

 

[Apollo20]

When I flew from Canada to the UK last year, the aircraft boarding security check in Canada did not involve a shoe X-ray, but coming back (from Stanstead) it did. That's the first time in my life I have walked around an airport in my socks!

This surely proves it's the government in each country, NOT THE AIRLINES, that set the security inspection rules at an airport...

 

[Par]

[T]hose three factors to prove (I think) that the current airline security regime cannot be based on a rational and informed assessment of the real dangers.

If it was based on a rational and informed assessment of the real dangers then either liquids would have been restricted on flights a long time ago, or they would never have been restricted at all. It's not as if the principles of chemistry have changed recently, or as if it's a totally novel idea that terrorists might want to use bombs to destroy planes.

So if the current security regime is a sensible one it's because they/we got lucky, not because they are proceeding on rational bases.

I think you might have very marginally overplayed your hand with that argument.

Even if we’re to again assume that the aforementioned three factors apply, it doesn’t necessarily follow that security procedures currently don’t generally have a rational basis. Rather, it would only be safe to say that at the least they haven’t always had a rational basis. Further, similarly, even if a given theory has been shown to be imperfect and at least at some earlier stage based upon an amount of irrationality or illusory evidence, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the burden of proof lies with its proponents.

Nevertheless, these two criticisms are, admittedly, relatively minor ones and the former seems to have already been discussed to some degree in my absence.

 

[Par]

[T]he claim made earlier that the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks the current airline security system is imperfect is mendacious. We've proven it's not based on rationality and evidence, so there's no grounds to assume that it's perfect until shown otherwise.

More importantly, however, I’m certainly not claiming that the security measures in question are perfect. In fact, it is you and not I who is asserting practical absolutes: On the one hand, I am making the rather banal claim that these measures serve at least some useful purpose. You, on the other hand, are not only arguing that they are imperfect, but also making the much more radical assertion that they serve practically no purpose whatsoever.

In light of this, it would appear that the case for the burden of proof being on those who claim that these measures are essentially purposeless is doubly strong: Firstly, they wish to affect a change in the current paradigm. Secondly, their claim is much more radical than that of their opponents.

 

[Par]

[J]ust because you find a sheep or three to say "I don't mind waiting in line while they x-ray people's sandals if it keeps the big bad wolf away", that doesn't mean that society wouldn't be better off if they were doing something useful with that time.

I notice that you appear to have reverted to the notion that people who happily comply with the security measures in question must be contemptibly pathetic and snivelling individuals – “sheep” – who are motivated by an utterly nebulous and vanishingly unlikely threat – the “big bad wolf” – to their own safety. However, as I have already pointed out, it is quite possible for such people – even if it transpires that they are simply wrong – to be motivated by generally honourable factors.

Further, the notion that such people are simply wrong is, of course, currently in contention. Thus, relying upon it as a premise – if that, conversely, is what you were intending – would fall foul of the begging the question fallacy.

Moreover, a number of your fellow interlocutors have already stated that they happily comply with the measures in question, and so that sort of pejorative and sardonic terminology is, if nothing else, rather impolite.

 

[Par]

...the Lucozade plot...

Incidentally, the term “Lucozade plot” is something of a misnomer: The significance of this event is not that the terrorists planned to take Lucozade – an entirely benign soft drink – onto an aircraft. Rather, it is significant because they intended to smuggle liquid explosives – potentially lethal substances – onboard.

 

[Par]

All I can say is it worked for me. I am now wanted in 24 countries. They'll never take me alive!

Uninteresting. I know of one fellow who disguised himself as a school. Do you know him? Have you seen him? We must catch that man. He really is a ◊◊◊◊.