John Oliver discusses torture

[NoahFence]

No, Upchurch. That is not the incentive. The incentive is to publish papers and get grants.

???

Not everybody is motivated by publishing papers and getting grants. It's not as if these scientists are swimming in grant money.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, if a British comedian says it doesn't work....

Anyone else who says it doesn't work is shrugged off too, so why not a British Comic?

 

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. That is not the incentive. The incentive is to publish papers and get grants.

Heh. Right, because everyone knows science is the easy road to fortune and fame!

What motivates the incentive to publish paper and get grants? Why do people go into science in the first place?

 

[Ziggurat]

Like all those 'heretics' the Inquisition found, right?

No, not like those at all. The Inquisition's use of torture was not intended to find heretics, but to get them to confess and disavow their heresy. So yes, when all you demand is a confession regardless of the truth, then that's all you get. This says nothing about the efficacy of torture when used for other purposes. And there are plenty of examples.

I'll give you one historical example where torture was used to obtain actual intelligence, and not simply a confession: Guy Fawkes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Heh. Right, because everyone knows science is the easy road to fortune and fame!

What motivates the incentive to publish paper and get grants? Why do people go into science in the first place?

Doesn't really matter. If publishing papers and getting grants is what they need to do to be in the field, then that's what they do: they will act in order to publish papers and get grants.

Tell me honestly: do you think a paper that says torture works would be easier or harder to get past peer review? Do you think a funding agency will respond more favorably to a researcher who shows that torture works, or to a researcher who shows that torture doesn't work? What's your honest expectation of the peer reaction to a researcher who writes that torture works versus one who writes that torture doesn't work? How do you think the public will react?

If, after consideration of these questions, you honestly think that scientists examining this question will be disinterested, then you're delusional.

 

[Ziggurat]

???

Not everybody is motivated by publishing papers and getting grants. It's not as if these scientists are swimming in grant money.

If you're not motivated to publish papers and get grants, then you won't publish papers and you won't get grants. And you will not remain a scientist for very long.

 

[Upchurch]

Tell me honestly: do you think a paper that says torture works would be easier or harder to get past peer review? Do you think a funding agency will respond more favorably to a researcher who shows that torture works, or to a researcher who shows that torture doesn't work? What's your honest expectation of the peer reaction to a researcher who writes that torture works versus one who writes that torture doesn't work? How do you think the public will react?

And you're still saying that you're not claiming that the scientific process has a liberal bias?

If, after consideration of these questions, you honestly think that scientists examining this question will be disinterested, then you're delusional.

I never said disinterested. I believe quite the opposite, in fact. I just disagree with you that they, or the scientific process, are inherently dishonest.

 

[NoahFence]

If you're not motivated to publish papers and get grants, then you won't publish papers and you won't get grants. And you will not remain a scientist for very long.

Lets not get too far away from the original reasoning to become a scientist. Knowledge.

You're in danger of ignoring that in order to make a point.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you're still saying that you're not claiming that the scientific process has a liberal bias?

I don't think anything I just said is specifically liberal or conservative.

I never said disinterested. I believe quite the opposite, in fact. I just disagree with you that they, or the scientific process, are inherently dishonest.

Did I say "inherently dishonest"? No, Upchurch, I did not. But now that you have conceded that they are not disinterested, do you not understand how that might affect their work?

 

[Ziggurat]

Lets not get too far away from the original reasoning to become a scientist. Knowledge.

You're in danger of ignoring that in order to make a point.

Let's not get too far away from the original reasoning we're discussing this in the first place: whether or not there is incentive to find that torture doesn't work.

You're in danger of ignoring that in order to make a point.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do any interrogation technique badly, and you'll probably get a lot of bad information.

I love this. "You're doing it wrong." Because that must be the case. Torture works, because of course it does; and if it doesn't work, it's because the person doing the torturing is doing it wrong.

Reminds me of the FMotL nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Torture is extremely effective...as long as you have another, conventional, more reliable, source for the same information, so you can confirm what the torture victim told you.

Seriously, I've heard this claim.

Well, yeah. Isn't that true of any information-gathering technique ? You don't just assume that the information is correct.

 

[shuttlt]

States have been torturing people for ages. Which are the ones that are models for torture that produces good reliable evidence?

 

[NoahFence]

Let's not get too far away from the original reasoning we're discussing this in the first place: whether or not there is incentive to find that torture doesn't work.

You're in danger of ignoring that in order to make a point.

Anything to keep the theory that scientists are rolling in the grant money afloat, I guess.


Well done.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anything to keep the theory that scientists are rolling in the grant money afloat, I guess.


Well done.

What the hell are you even talking about? I never suggested that scientists are "rolling" in grant money. But damn straight they have grant money. How the hell do you think they run a research program?

 

[Ziggurat]

I love this. "You're doing it wrong." Because that must be the case. Torture works, because of course it does; and if it doesn't work, it's because the person doing the torturing is doing it wrong.

Reminds me of the FMotL nonsense.

This has no connection to anything I actually said.

 

[Upchurch]

Did I say "inherently dishonest"? No, Upchurch, I did not.

No, you're just suggesting that scientists are writing their papers, not so they reflect the research they have done, but to support a desired conclusion. You did not say "inherently dishonest", but that is what you described.

But now that you have conceded that they are not disinterested, do you not understand how that might affect their work?

Of course scientists are interested in their subjects. Why would they study them if they were not? Interested, however, does not mean that they are biasing their work or that they are being dishonest in the hopes of getting, of all things, grant money.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, yeah. Isn't that true of any information-gathering technique ? You don't just assume that the information is correct.

Exactly: no matter what technique you use for interrogation, you cannot be sure about the veracity of any information you obtain unless you have a way to independently confirm it.

 

[Belz...]

The other thing is that you're assuming a rather unsophisticated use of torture, but that's not a good assumption.

enhanced interrogation techniques

Why do you use the euphemism now since you've already called it torture before ?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Exactly: no matter what technique you use for interrogation, you cannot be sure about the veracity of any information you obtain unless you have a way to independently confirm it.

Which is why it shouldn't shock anyone that among the people conducting the interview will be folks who know.