1) What evidence do we have? Testimony from our president. I am not interested in a partisan pee-pee contest. I like this president, didn't like the last one. There is clear evidence that the last one lied about a serious matter. Shouldn't we seriously question these things now, despite political affiliation?
Since this is not a Conspiracy Theories thread, we can actually learn something from this question...
The way to approach it is as follows:
Hypothesis Testing. So in this case we have two basic hypotheses -- one, bin Laden is dead. The other, bin Laden is still alive.
Let's flesh these out a little. In the first hypothesis, we are actually claiming that bin Laden is dead as a result of a military special operation launched by the United States, which infiltrated the compound he was staying at in Pakistan and shot him to death in the ensuing melee.
This hypothesis has a great deal of circumstantial evidence. For starters, the result and the mechanism proposed are plausible -- bin Laden is or was not bulletproof, and the USA has capable special forces with the ability to carry out this sort of thing. Second-hand reporting indicates that an operation took place at that location and at that date (tweets, news video, etc.).
So the counter-hypotheses must address the points at which the above hypothesis is at its weakest. Let us accept, therefore, that the op happened and that someone was killed. The alternative, therefore, is that either (a) bin Laden was captured, (b) bin Laden escaped, or (c) bin Laden was never there in the first place and some other poor sod got whacked.
Is there any evidence for the three above? Not really. All I've seen from any quarter is "doubt." Whether this doubt is reasonable or unreasonable misses the point. The simple fact is, the alternative has no evidence in support. It therefore cannot be a stronger hypothesis. At best, it is still plausible and thus still competitive, but under no circumstances is it the
leading hypothesis.
The initial hypothesis also provides circumstantial evidence for bin Laden's positive identification. Mentioned in the press are some plausible, definitive test results, including DNA. Now, admittedly, these results are not independently verifiable, because they cannot be replicated without access to the same samples, or without verifying the chain of custody. But that doesn't mean these tests can be simply ignored.
What about the alternatives? Is there any reason to believe this test must be wrong? That there's a possible alternate explanation? That would be no.
Other folks have pointed out that the absence of negative evidence is itself evidence against the alternatives -- if bin Laden is still alive, why is no one claiming he is? Why doesn't he issue another stupid tape with another bogus
fatwa thumbing his nose at the USA? Well, these arguments also fall into the category of "circumstantial," indeed are little more than an
Appeal to Silence.
But it does suggest one way in which the alternative could be proven.
So... what evidence would you like to see? And how much more "proven" would this make it, in your mind?
As you think about that question, riddle me this: Is there evidence that non-avian dinosaurs are actually extinct? It's the same kind of thing.
Bottom line is, it is possible that bin Laden is still alive, but there is no compelling reason to believe this is so. The rational conclusion is that he is dead.
