Author Archives: Bruce Nielson

Intelligence and the Iraq War

Posted on by

From Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars:

Hayden [the out going CIA director] met Panetta [the new one for the Obama administration] for a last heart to heart. He wanted to clear the air, correct the record as he understood it. “Leon,” Hayden said, “I’ve been reading some of your writings while out of government. You claim the Bush administration cherry picked the intelligence for Iraqi WMD.”

Panetta had blamed a special unit setup by Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

“That’s not true. We got it wrong, okay? It was a clear swing and a miss. It’s our fault.”

Panetta said he got it. There had been a catastrophic intelligence failure at the agency he was taking over.

The Evening News and The Psychology of Belief / Unbelief

Posted on by

Jesus Walks on Water

In a past post I talked about Joe Geisner’s short review (in a comment) of Heinrich Paulus’ book where he tries to come up with ways to explain way the miracles of Jesus.

All of this reminded me of a news report I once saw on the evening news. I wish I had a clip of it. I can’t even remember for sure if it was Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings. I’m thinking it was Peter Jennings.

At best as I can remember from memory, here is what he said:

Well, we recently did two news reports that might be important for Christians. One was a news report that scholars have found the Gospel of Judas, complete with it’s very different take on the teachings of Jesus, and another was about a scholar that had discovered that sometimes the Sea of Galillee freezes, perhaps explaining how Jesus walked across it.

Given these recent news stories, we wouldn’t blame people if their faith was shaken. Good night.

Continue reading →

Bloggernacle Thought: Brainwashing

Posted on by

Another reprint from Mormon Matters.

This comment is from SilverRain. I found it here.

“Brainwashed” is probably ranked with the weakest possible arguments. If I say you’re brainwashed, I can ignore the chance that someone might be able to disagree with me and have a valid point. If I can relegate you to a pat little category, I don’t have to listen. A little wake-up call, folks: it could be easily said that we are all brainwashed. We are all products of our environment. Quit name-calling and try—just try—to understand another person’s point of view for once. You might find yourself stretching and growing. You might even find yourself becoming wise.

Two related comments:

When a debate reduces to the point of namecalling it’s all over. Names are the verbal equivalent of throwing rocks, which is what kids do when they’re scared. (said by jendoop)

Jendoop—I love your turn of phrase, and your point. When people turn to namecalling it is generally because they are scared. Perhaps a little more compassion towards them is in order. (said by SilverRain)

Discuss

Book Review – 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

Posted on by

1491

I recently finished Charles Mann’s book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and wanted to do a quick book review.

As the title indicates, this is a book about what the civilizations of the American continent were like before Columbus arrived. The book is based on the most current research on the subject, though I must warn you that even our best most recent research seems quite tentative to me, as the author often admits. But here are some interesting new directions that seem worthy of note.

Continue reading →

Myth of the Framework: Why Conflict Must Never Be Eliminated

Posted on by

In my last post, I mentioned that I subscribe to Karl Popper’s ideas about “The Myth of the Framework.” So what is this Myth about Frameworks anyhow?

The Myth of the Framework Defined

Karl Popper describes the “myth” like this – and please note that you’ve probably not only heard this before, but likely you’ve said it before:

The myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion. (Myth of the Framework, p. 34-35)

Right along with Popper, I’m going to pull out my “bull” (and by that I mean “baloney”) detector and it goes off right away.

Popper spares no expense talking about the sort of damage this pernicious belief has caused:

Some people… think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it. (Myth of the Framework, p. 35)

Whoa! Strong words! Could this view of incommensurable frameworks really be that bad?

Continue reading →