Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Columnist: The C.I.A.:

[Victor Steinbok <victor.steinbok@verizon.net>]

At 09:21 PM 2/3/2004, Peter Majoy wrote:
> This article is a two edged sword. On the one hand it does a good job
> de-mythologizing scientfic claims of infallibility and, as such, is useful
> in applying to one of its manifestations, standardized testing. On the other
> hand, you have to note that Brooks uses his critique of the CIA to support
> Bush who had his own specially selected group cooking the books at the
> Pentagon to help rationalize a policy that had already been in the planning
> stages before September 11. Therefore, the Brooks critique comes full circle
> to expose his own practice of the very thing he is condemning, posing as an
> objective fellow.

FWIW I don't believe the piece is in support of Bush--at best, it is 
neutral simply claiming that the fault lies with someone else. I suppose, 
one could claim that not blaming Bush is, in some sense, supporting him, 
but I see this as an exaggeration. On the other hand, I simply think that 
Brooks is wrong here. Take a look at his piece on the Democratic primaries 
last Friday. He identifies something that is best described as a mental 
tautology--in the case of the primaries, it is the case of voters lining up 
behind the leading candidate quite simply because he's the leading 
candidate. In the case of the column in question, we should throw out the 
pseudo-scientific basis for human decisions and rely strictly on human 
decision. He's wrong on the science and the tautology is in the fact that 
it is the human decisions that got us in trouble to begin with. But I've 
already commented on that.

On the other hand, objectivity is not quite the same animal as scientific 
reductionism (or "scientism"). The latter is probably better described as 
"emotionless" rather than "objective". But accusing an OpEd columnist of 
lack of objectivity is silly to begin with--it is an OPINION column, after all.

        VS-)