I can’t think anything that would convince this John Smith character. Couldn’t we just hopelessly marginalise him?

Sadly he always seems to be present and I think we therefore have to take him into account.

Yes, you do. That’s a subjective analysis of historical data there, is it not?

My point was to point out that history generally relies on weaker forms of evidence than science so you cannot determine scientific realities from historical observations.

Who’s ever tried to? Why did they bother?

Also, by its nature, much history is speculative. Science can show how a stone age corpse in a glacier died, it does not say much about what he was doing there when he did die. We might piece together an explanation from cave paintings and social habits of humans but it will be subjective and effectively untestable.

It is not so much speculative as interpretive.

I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes. The efficacy of torture is a scientific question and can only be answered using scientific evidence. Historical evidence, the writings of Foucault et al, political ideologies and so on have no bearing on investigations of efficacy.

We are most certainly talking at cross purposes. You list ‘historical evidence’ as if it belongs in the same category as ‘the writings of Foucault et al.’ (implying that there are other historians you do trust? I’m stunned) and ‘political ideologies’.

If you said ‘historical interpretations’, you might, just might, have had a point. But you didn’t. You said ‘historical evidence’. You are, therefore, wrong. Evidence, from evide; that which is seen. In history as in any other academic disciplilne, that which is seen is that which is seen. What you think of it is up to you: that’s interpretation, or in my analogy from earlier, that’s a verdict (I notice you didn’t respond at all to my Historiography 101; is this because you didn’t understand it, or because you didn’t care to recognise you were wrong?).

You have once again utterly refused to engage with my substantive points and have instead resorted to hyperbole. The efficacy of torture can be approached scientifically; in fact, one could design a Milgram experiment where the electric shocks were real. Do you know of an ethics board which would permit that?

Given that the answer is unlikely to be ‘yes’ unless you are talking about such rogue states as Syria, North Korea or the Bush era USA, if one is to advance the debate at all one must rely on primary and secondary sources that already exist. That means you’re off the scientific turf (I nearly said ‘your turf’ but I’ve seen no evidence to the effect that you have scientific training) and into the historical. You seem to understand no reasoning except empirical deductive; you are aware that other types exist, right? Including hypothetical and inductive reasoning? And that they are useful, and are defined as clearly within formal logic as the rules for deductive reasoning are?

Foucault is mere opinion, his sources anecdote and hearsay

Prove it.

Einstein is not cited like Foucault. People don’t refer to Einsteins theories alone, they refer to the evidence that supports them when quoting an equation like e=mc2.

Which is not only how I referred to Discipline and Punish, it is quite precisely why I referred to the book at all. I don’t care about his theories. I don’t care about his post-modernism (though I understand it quite well, and know what it’s good for and what it’s bad for). I don’t care about his opinions, his politics or his pet bloody lobster [1]. The reason I referred people to the book is that it collates a vast quantity of primary and secondary source data into an easily obtainable repository. I was, specifically and explicitly, referencing “the evidence”, not the theories.

Since you have yet to make any attempt to engage substantively but just keep stringing out the same, wrong, arguments about what you thought I was saying, I’m beginning to wonder if I’m being trolled. Opinions, anyone?

[1] This is actually a reference to someone else, but I couldn’t think of anything suitably risible about Foucault that I could claim not to care about.

It can be used simply to induce a state of terror in the minds of the opponents – this type of apparatus is often found in states where thugs like Mugabe, Saddam, Amin, Gaddafi, et al flourish.

Science too operates within certain conditions of knowledge and is subject to historical change. There is a natural bias in favour of older theories, not ones that a necessarily more explanatorily powerful and there are also entrenched interests that can keep old theories alive after their time and new ones out. Which is not to take much away from the amazing things science can do, but it doesn’t represent a gold standard of truth either.

I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes. The efficacy of torture is a scientific question and can only be answered using scientific evidence. Historical evidence, the writings of Foucault et al, political ideologies and so on have no bearing on investigations of efficacy.

PS Einstein is not cited like Foucault. People don’t refer to Einsteins theories alone, they refer to the evidence that supports them when quoting an equation like e=mc2. His theories are supported (and ultimately disproven) by the rigorous study of the universe using the scientific method, Foucault is mere opinion, his sources anecdote and hearsay, we cannot prove that something written on paper is true or our interpretation correct when it comes to history. We can when it comes to science (well it’s more a failure to prove it wrong)..

Ironically, your sneer that “post-modernism is a crock of shit” is both an ad hominem, a bare assertion and, worst of all, an unfunny use of the two.

Squander,

The debate isn’t confined to “people whose speciality is intelligence-gathering“. It covers yer average soldiers – see, for example, the thug turned wannabe-Congressman Allen West.

UKLiberty,

I can’t think anything that would convince this John Smith character. Couldn’t we just hopelessly marginalise him?

My point was to point out that history generally relies on weaker forms of evidence than science so you cannot determine scientific realities from historical observations.

And in making a comment about history I was not attempting to establish a scientific reality. I was answering the concern expressed above that scientific testing of the interrogative efficacy of torture is not possible in a modern ethically-governed environment, and thus pointing to evidence which survives from a past which experimented extensively with torture. History relies on, not weaker forms of evidence (evidence is that which is seen: everything seen is evidence) but on multiple levels of source material. The discipline of professional history is very good at identifying the difference between archaeological evidence (which is hard-factual), and interpretative data (which is not): between primary sources (things people who were there wrote down) and secondary sources (things people who weren’t there wrote down).

You seem to believe that Nazi documentation of torture is in some way ‘scientific evidence’ that is of a higher order than ‘historical evidence’; Nazi documentation of torture is simply a primary source. Every instance must be assessed for provenance (where and by whom was it written, how can we be forensically sure?), then the whole must be analysed to provide any information from the data. That’s what historians do. You seem to think that things documented in the 20th century become scientific by denfinition; bear in mind how many discrepancies archaeology has uncovered between what the Abwehr wrote down and what had actually happened.

As far as I can tell, ‘your point’ is that you think history is academically flawed by nature, that you don’t like Foucault and that you don’t like me.

Shatterface, the Nazi’s famously meticulously recorded the Holocaust, this is why nobody seriously entertains the deniers. There is ample evidence it existed.

Yes. Historical evidence. It’s what historians use. It’s what I use. An example of evidence of torture given in Foucault’s book is the Court Recorder’s report of the execution of an attempted regicide in 1762. I know what it says, because I’m an historian. My readers may not. Thus I pointed them towards a repository of evidence. It’s called substantiation.

Secondarily, what you interpret as an appeal to authority is neither here nor there. You were claiming that my argument rested on Foucault’s authority. The passage you quote here is from my rebuttal to your rejection of my entire point merely because I had the temerity to reference an academic text: something you apparently disapprove of, since the only evidenciary reference you’ve made to date is to a logical fallacy that you clearly don’t understand.

I interpreted as arguing that Foucault was an authority therefore he should be listened to.

My bold. By admitting to interpretation, you must also admit that what you’re saying now bears no relationship to the topic under discussion, which is what I actually said.

Most of the medieval ‘torture’ implements and practices did not, as people today seem to believe, have any investigative function. They were punitive; that is, they were things you did to someone who you already knew was guilty. [1]

[1] Michael Foucault’s Discipline and Punish is a very good text for understanding the scale of, and reasons for, the shift in social and legal thinking which takes place during the Enlightenment.

This is called a reference. If people don’t use them, people like you discount their arguments as ‘hearsay’ or ‘anecdote’. Apparently, every time one refers to a source, one is then ‘committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority’? So, for example, anyone who cites Einstein’s formulation E=mc2 is committing the same logical fallacy? I’ve already debunked that: appeal to authority would be “Foucault says this: therefore it must be true”. At no point do I suggest that my knowledge came from Foucault on this point; nowhere do I suggest that it’s true because Foucault says it. You do not understand the logical fallacy you’re referencing. Please learn the words.

That you seek to argue based on your own authority

Fun this. The point is personal opinions without evidence have no value in evidence based reasoning.

I couldn’t trim any of that, as it’s quite entertaining.

You have, at no point, adduced any data. Not once. I have; several times. You are attempting to discount or ignore my data by trying to claim I’m committing errors of reasoning when in fact I’m referencing texts which contain precisely the evidence you’re trying to ignore. Forget that Foucault goes on to draw conclusions from his evidence: I was pointing the reader at a large body of evidence, in an easily obtainable form. It’s what people who’re using evidence-based reasoning do. Being an experienced debater provides me with no authority at all; in fact, by mentioning it I’m undermining myself, since debaters tend to ignore evidence in favour of rhetoric. However, it does mean I’ve had to learn the list of logical fallacies and what they actually mean; something it seems you have not.

I have expressed no personal opinions on the efficacy of torture in this thread. Not once. I have only described methods which work (based on evidence), methods which work some of the time (based on evidence), and methods which really don’t work very well at all (based on evidence). Please could you start reading what I write instead of what you wish I’d written?

I think evidence of bodies, gas chambers and such can be used to apply Occam’s razor to determine probably cause. Nazi documentation removed any doubt over probably cause. Likewise the slave trade which was well documented.

My point was to point out that history generally relies on weaker forms of evidence than science so you cannot determine scientific realities from historical observations. Also, by its nature, much history is speculative. Science can show how a stone age corpse in a glacier died, it does not say much about what he was doing there when he did die. We might piece together an explanation from cave paintings and social habits of humans but it will be subjective and effectively untestable.

Historical evidence, no? Which I thought was all anecdote and hearsay?

John Q.

History is, indeed, not science. Neither is ethics, philosophy, nor politics (although the poli-sci geeks managed to get it tacked onto their name; great advertising coup, shit academic description). Music is not science, nor is film-making. Not all good things are science; science is not the only viable analytical model.

I’m not denying the use of these other systems as means of understanding and explaining human phenomena. But the issue Martin was raising was that to discuss the ethics of torture in meaningful way, which accounts for reality, you have to understand its efficacy. Without this any philosophical, ethical or political discussion regarding its use is meaningless. Martin is calling for evidence to inform public policy prior to ethical and philosophical debate.

Your second point on appeals to authority, you did say

Foucault’s philosophies are neither here nor there; the book is sound history, thoroughly substantiated. If you would like to question that, feel free to explain the shift from legal emphasis on punishment and on specifically hideous physical torture towards remedial and custodial justice through the course of the Enlightenment as effectively and coherently; and feel free to include the same quantity of primary and secondary source data, referenced and indexed.

which I interpreted as arguing that Foucault was an authority therefore he should be listened to. As the second part of the quote from your link says

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

My bold.

That you seek to argue based on your own authority

If you’re going to try and reference logical fallacies to disarm an experienced debater

is a further example of this fallacy.

Fun this. The point is personal opinions without evidence have no value in evidence based reasoning.

History is not science though, it is simply subjectivity applied to anecdote and hearsay, therefore it has nothing to say on the efficacy of torture, the lack of such was the premise under debate. Therefore Foucault’s opinions have nothing to say on whether torture works so they are irrelevant to the debate.

History is, indeed, not science. Neither is ethics, philosophy, nor politics (although the poli-sci geeks managed to get it tacked onto their name; great advertising coup, shit academic description). Music is not science, nor is film-making. Not all good things are science; science is not the only viable analytical model.

History is, however, a systematic process of gathering, assessing, collating and analysing data to provide understanding; rather like a police->court case process, in fact. Archaeologists are our SOCOs, the forensic techs are our, well, forensics techs, the historians are our investigators and the historiographers are our legal beagles.

Beyond which; your logic is flawed (any survey of collected data from the 20th century on the efficacy of torture is ‘history’, therefore any attempt to understand the efficacy of torture is ‘history’, therefore ‘history’ is in fact the only way it is possible to analyse the subject matter). In addition to that, I specifically did not reference Foucault’s opinions, I referred the interested to his book which includes a huge quantity of verifiable survey data, clearly collated and presented. So you are, in fact, talking out your ear.

@78:

PS you just committed the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority: An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

So in this instance that would have been: Foucault says (in Discipline and Punish) that torture doesn’t work for interrogative purposes, therefore torture must not work for those purposes. I made no such claim or statement: what I said was that most medieval torture implements were punitive, not investigative, in purpose. The data underlying that statement is a large and diverse body of primary and secondary sources (I have, for example, personally surveyed the Prague museum of torture implements and examined both the artifacts and the scholarship surrounding them). I referenced Foucault’s book because it happens to contain a great deal of that data in a clearly laid out format. He never even asks the question of whether medieval torture was primarily investigative because he has no need to: anyone who knows the field knows it wasn’t.

I clearly stated that my first four comments were historical notes. I provided a source where the interested scholar could find some of the data. I did not attempt to make any logical deductions; I left them to the reader. My later comments were then a chain of reasoning which you have yet to address.

If you’re going to try and reference logical fallacies to disarm an experienced debater, be damned sure you’re right before you eat your own foot.

He had some great ideas though, and ‘discourse’ in an invaluable concept.

The problem was that postmodernists took the idea that all is discourse literally and unshackled themselves from reality.

Still, that’s for another thread.

As to the notion that history is just anecdote and hearsay, I’ve overheard gossip about a Holocaust and unsubstantiated rumour about the slave trade but now I know it’s all just subjective.

PS you just committed the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Sod post-modernism. Foucault’s philosophies are neither here nor there; the book is sound history, thoroughly substantiated. If you would like to question that, feel free to explain the shift from legal emphasis on punishment and on specifically hideous physical torture towards remedial and custodial justice through the course of the Enlightenment as effectively and coherently; and feel free to include the same quantity of primary and secondary source data, referenced and indexed.

History is not science though, it is simply subjectivity applied to anecdote and hearsay, therefore it has nothing to say on the efficacy of torture, the lack of such was the premise under debate. Therefore Foucault’s opinions have nothing to say on whether torture works so they are irrelevant to the debate.

What we can say about torture is:
*it has a long and dark history.
*it is common place (whenever certain conditions arise).
*it transcends most cultures (correct me if I’m wrong).

The act of torture cannot be separated from the power infra-structure in which takes place. In other words there will often be tacit approval from those in a position of power. I believe this was the case when a number of IRA suspects were apprehended, for example.

As long as these adverserial international and domestic conditions persist I simply do not see how the general public can affect what goes on behind closed doors, or in distant countries – I suppose if we really want to stop torture then we need enough like minded people at the sharp end who are either unwilling to participate in torture themselves, or prevent those who are.

But in times of war especially, the pendulum often swings the other way.

Any such ‘evidence’ would also have to be corroborated, potentially diverting investigations down blind allys, etc. just as with information extracted by torture. Purely as a matter of utility, psychological methods offer no advantage.

The former is an empirical matter which is potentially refutable while the latter is not.

The problem is that none of the politicians fought in WW 2 and therefore appreciate that maintaining a level of decency provides strength of purpose. If we descend to the level of savages what are we defending ?

If for every 1 case of torture working, there are 9 cases where it led to false testimony wasting the time of investigators, then it just doesn’t work in any practical sense.

Huh? If I’m in politics and don’t mind torturing, I would be satisfied to achieve a 1 in 10 hit rate, because my public won’t hear about the timewasting, but they will hear that “waterboarding stopped another 9/11″.

Try to pretend you are not a person who wants to be rational and objective, who is capable of making informed decisions, and wants to make them, a person whose interest in a topic leads him to research it, rather than a person who merely scans one article in a newspaper that tends to agree with his prejudices.

gyges,

My thoughts on the matter are that they did it simply because they could;

I think some of them thought it was necessary, too.

BenSix, it is all very well quoting Army Manuals, FBI agents and other intelligence officers that say torture does not work, but what about Cheney, the DoD, and other intelligence officers that say torture does work? Take John Smith, who hates brown people and already believes torture works – who is he going to believe?

I’m not saying don’t try to prove it doesn’t work, I’m just saying don’t get your hopes up.

While the religious manipulation is distasteful to someone who takes religion seriously, it’s still psychology. The main reason the trick works isn’t just about time; the reason the trick works is that Gideon (I just loved seeing Mandy Patinkin again!) has spent the intervening 20 hours engaging with the suspect, talking to him, and very very cleverly playing his own assumptions and sense of identity off against his desires and anxieties. It’s all about the psychology, and that was really the only reason I used the example.

The problem is, I can’t point the general public to any of the other reasons I understand this stuff because none of them made the evening news. I grew up on a continent which still does civil wars and I have personally experienced some of what I talk about.