Did Bush Save 10 Million Lives?

[Skeptic]

Some counterfactual statements -- "If I had gone out in the rain I would have gotten wet" -- are easy to evaluate, roughly speaking, because they're describing things in a (fictional) "possible world" close enough to the actual world for us to imagine how things are there.

The problem is that countefactual statements that ask us to evaluate a possible world that's far away from the actual world -- in this case, one where Bush's African aid policies are radically different -- it is very hard to imagine whether there would be 10,000,000 more, or less, or the same number, of African lives saved.

If I *had* to guess, I would say that Bush's generous African aid probably did save many lives, but the 10,000,000 lives claim is probably an overstatement. But who knows? Maybe his policies actually made no difference or made things worse. Or maybe he saved not 10,000,000, but 50,000,000 lives. We don't know and, obviously, cannot know.

What bothers me is that when counterfactual statements that are no more realistic are made which make Bush look bad, THAT is instantly accepted as "fact": "If Bush hadn't done X millions of lives would be saved" is evaluated, in effect, with the same certainty as "If Bush had gone out in the rain he would have gotten wet".

 

[fuelair]

I suppose a slightly better title for this thread would have been "Should Bush Be Praised for Saving 10 Million Lives?" Though, before you can answer that, you have to answer "Did he actually save 10 million lives?", first.

I tried to do a quick Google search for the World Health Organization's data on this, but could not find it, in the short time I had to do so.

The author of the article also seems to think that Bush's No Child Left Behind act will be seen as the first major step towards improving science education in America. Though, somehow I doubt such a high reliance on standardized testing is really going to achieve that. (That could be a subject for a different thread, though since it was in the same article, I suppose there is nothing wrong with commenting on that part, here, either. Especially if just crickets are going to chirp in the "Saves Lives" discussion.)

I can only speak for Florida and emphasize Chemistry - but thanks mostly to FCAT we are forced to teach Chemistry mostly out of order to make sure stuff that MAY have one or two questions on FCAT Science is covered before the FCAT is given (March or April/11th Grade - also the primary year Chem. is taken). That is not how you make sure students know Chemistry - though the test may, then, make it appear they do.

ETA: Anyone who thinks NCLB is going to make much difference in education in real life (beyond being taught to re: standardized tests) is fooling themselves.

 

[Allen773]

He indirectly caused to the deaths of over 1 million people in Iraq...

 

[Smackety]

He indirectly caused to the deaths of over 1 million people in Iraq...

which saved them permanently from the oppression of an evil dictator who was just moments from taking over the world and had to be stopped at any cost.

 

[Allen773]

which saved them permanently from the oppression of an evil dictator who was just moments from taking over the world and had to be stopped at any cost.

Where do you get your Kool-Aid?

 

[Smackety]

Where do you get your Kool-Aid?

You first

ETA: Can you source your 1 million claim?

 

[Bjorn]

Some counterfactual statements -- "If I had gone out in the rain I would have gotten wet" -- are easy to evaluate, roughly speaking, because they're describing things in a (fictional) "possible world" close enough to the actual world for us to imagine how things are there.

The problem is that countefactual statements that ask us to evaluate a possible world that's far away from the actual world -- in this case, one where Bush's African aid policies are radically different -- it is very hard to imagine whether there would be 10,000,000 more, or less, or the same number, of African lives saved.

If I *had* to guess, I would say that Bush's generous African aid probably did save many lives, but the 10,000,000 lives claim is probably an overstatement. But who knows? Maybe his policies actually made no difference or made things worse. Or maybe he saved not 10,000,000, but 50,000,000 lives. We don't know and, obviously, cannot know.

What bothers me is that when counterfactual statements that are no more realistic are made which make Bush look bad, THAT is instantly accepted as "fact": "If Bush hadn't done X millions of lives would be saved" is evaluated, in effect, with the same certainty as "If Bush had gone out in the rain he would have gotten wet".

I have no problems agreeing with that - but (being me ) I have to add that for some other people on this forum whatever makes Bush look good is much more likely to be true than whatever makes him look bad. It goes both ways, doesn't it?

 

[fuelair]

Where do you get your Kool-Aid?

You are clearly not familiar with DC - he just left off the sarcastic smiley. ETA:Based on the two threads I have seen you in, you both agree on a lot of stuff, but not all. I don't.



ETA, my mistake - I could have sworn the quote was from DC but I was wrong - nevermind.

 

[Wowbagger]

The problem is that countefactual statements that ask us to evaluate a possible world that's far away from the actual world -- in this case, one where Bush's African aid policies are radically different -- it is very hard to imagine whether there would be 10,000,000 more, or less, or the same number, of African lives saved.

Suppose the following:
* Africa already had policies that were effectively reducing AIDS fatalities
* There exists a type of education program whose effects were known to cause greater spread of STDs in general, and the reasons why were well understood.
* The president's administration demands the successful policy of the former to be replaced by the later.

Coming up with exact numbers of folks impacted by that might be difficult, but surely you can see the value in trying.

I am also sure you recognize that there sometimes comes a point when counterfactual models could transform into testable hypothesis, that then become science.

 

[Wowbagger]

That is not how you make sure students know Chemistry - though the test may, then, make it appear they do.

ETA: Anyone who thinks NCLB is going to make much difference in education in real life (beyond being taught to re: standardized tests) is fooling themselves.

That is the sort of thing that frightens me:

A. Students coming out of science classes think that science is just a lot of random facts (or, in the case of ID, distortions of facts) that one needs to memorize. When science is really supposed to be an experience.

B. School administrators assuming students really are learning a lot of science, when in fact, they are probably cramming for tests, and losing it all afterwards; while simultaneously lacking the experience emphasized by students in other countries.

It makes basic critical thinking skills that much harder to help them develop.