Thanks Steve for these meaningful remarks and criticism of what would otherwise be thought to be the truth. It always seems to me too, that what is motivating such statements from the leaders of various countries, both friendly and not, are explanations that are suitably warped so as to meet the particular political situation that applies to where the words are coming. In other words, they all need to be understood and re-interpreted in the light of what is the side on which the words are sourced. Even you can be criticised for doing this sometimes!
This means that there are many questions that remain unanswered as to who and what is the correct situation or truth about various matters of importance and if in particular our situation with the cease-fire in Iran is allowing them too much of a margin for worse developments? Can somebody who is really responsible for unbiased news provide us with the truth about how much more we and all the others too, will have to suffer before these wars are REALLY completed and the stability of this region re-established?
I thought I was the only one who thought that Trump moved too fast, and how did it become our responsibility to drop bombs on the sites in Iran. So Trump says to Netanyahu, “Step aside and I’ll take care of things”. What a relief for Netanyahu!
Trump's about-face is the most salient example I can think of regarding knowingness. Israelis cheered Trump's decision to bomb Fordow but some were upset that he then restrained Netanyahu. How can Trump be so sure that the best strategy was to first bomb Fordo and then to prevent Israel from attacking remaining targets?
For all we know, he has created the most dangerous scenario. Perhaps he should have stayed out and let Israel continue pounding Iran until it led to regime change, in which case there'd be no need to destroy Fordow. But that is counterfactual. All we know is that his behavior has changed the system significantly, creating new adjacent possibles while eliminating previous adjacent possibles.
And like you wrote David, I, too, am subject to criticism because I also have my biases and motivated reasoning. In my defense, however, I do try to maintain epistemic modesty and admit that I don't know how things will turn out. I can only state what seems to me the most likely possibilities.
I always appreciate your perspective and it’s so different than the mainstream. I often feel like I have no idea what “facts,” to believe. Many were originally predicting a regime change in Iran. Without that and without moving into some sort of diplomacy, so much unknown and it affects all people in the region. Thank you as always. I hope we can see a time when we have honest leadership with vision for real peace.
Thanks Steve for these meaningful remarks and criticism of what would otherwise be thought to be the truth. It always seems to me too, that what is motivating such statements from the leaders of various countries, both friendly and not, are explanations that are suitably warped so as to meet the particular political situation that applies to where the words are coming. In other words, they all need to be understood and re-interpreted in the light of what is the side on which the words are sourced. Even you can be criticised for doing this sometimes!
This means that there are many questions that remain unanswered as to who and what is the correct situation or truth about various matters of importance and if in particular our situation with the cease-fire in Iran is allowing them too much of a margin for worse developments? Can somebody who is really responsible for unbiased news provide us with the truth about how much more we and all the others too, will have to suffer before these wars are REALLY completed and the stability of this region re-established?
I thought I was the only one who thought that Trump moved too fast, and how did it become our responsibility to drop bombs on the sites in Iran. So Trump says to Netanyahu, “Step aside and I’ll take care of things”. What a relief for Netanyahu!
Thanks, David and Betty.
Trump's about-face is the most salient example I can think of regarding knowingness. Israelis cheered Trump's decision to bomb Fordow but some were upset that he then restrained Netanyahu. How can Trump be so sure that the best strategy was to first bomb Fordo and then to prevent Israel from attacking remaining targets?
For all we know, he has created the most dangerous scenario. Perhaps he should have stayed out and let Israel continue pounding Iran until it led to regime change, in which case there'd be no need to destroy Fordow. But that is counterfactual. All we know is that his behavior has changed the system significantly, creating new adjacent possibles while eliminating previous adjacent possibles.
And like you wrote David, I, too, am subject to criticism because I also have my biases and motivated reasoning. In my defense, however, I do try to maintain epistemic modesty and admit that I don't know how things will turn out. I can only state what seems to me the most likely possibilities.
I always appreciate your perspective and it’s so different than the mainstream. I often feel like I have no idea what “facts,” to believe. Many were originally predicting a regime change in Iran. Without that and without moving into some sort of diplomacy, so much unknown and it affects all people in the region. Thank you as always. I hope we can see a time when we have honest leadership with vision for real peace.