Charles Drago Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 A well-executed cover story, which is designed in essence to pacify the parsimonious with its simple, initially plausible, fictive narrative supported by "evidence" made out of whole cloth, turns Occam's razor into a blunt and ineffective instrument for the dissection of intelligence operations. Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Kent Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 A well-executed cover story, which is designed in essence to pacify the parsimonious with its simple, initially plausible, fictive narrative supported by "evidence" made out of whole cloth, turns Occam's razor into a blunt and ineffective instrument for the dissection of intelligence operations.Charles Drago Occam's razor, put forth precisely as intended, is a very useful maxim for streamlining thought. Dictionary definition: "The maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The key wording obviously is "beyond necessity," making a detailed knowledge of the subject matter mandatory before the principle can be properly applied. Using "Occam" to avoid confronting the real-life complexity of covert operations is not only a misuse, but often a confession of intellectual sloth or cowardice. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Alan, You write, "Using 'Occam' to avoid confronting the real-life complexity of covert operations is not only a misuse, but often a confession of intellectual sloth or cowardice." I'll add "complicity" to your list of possible motives. Old Bill's shaving instrument is waved with abandon by Rahn, McAdam, and their ilk when they attempt to wrap the cloak of scientific rigor around their hideously ill-clad LN "arguments." As you correctly note, "detailed knowledge of the subject matter" is indeed a mandatory prerequisite to the proper use of the principle of parsimony. And it is precisely such detail that the prevaricators must obscure if they are to carry the day. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) A well-executed cover story, which is designed in essence to pacify the parsimonious with its simple, initially plausible, fictive narrative supported by "evidence" made out of whole cloth, turns Occam's razor into a blunt and ineffective instrument for the dissection of intelligence operations.Charles Drago Occam's razor, put forth precisely as intended, is a very useful maxim for streamlining thought. Dictionary definition: "The maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The key wording obviously is "beyond necessity," making a detailed knowledge of the subject matter mandatory before the principle can be properly applied. Using "Occam" to avoid confronting the real-life complexity of covert operations is not only a misuse, but often a confession of intellectual sloth or cowardice. IMO. I find Occam's Razor readily applicable to the JFK assassination on the front end, if you will, and then again on the back end. In between lies the jungle of mirrors known as "covert ops." The front end: JFK's proven T3 back wound has rendered moot, "The Question of Conspiracy." The back end: transportation tycoons and criminal syndicate chiefs found a smuggler's paradise in Cuba, and wanted it back. That's my 69 cents.* ** (*accounting for inflation) (**a nod to KRS-One and his great rap song, Illegal Business (Controls America).) Edited August 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Cliff, Your comments regarding the T3 wound are on the money. I have heard those who claim to be utilizing Occam "argue" that the "simplest" version of the location of the back wound that takes into account "all the evidence" is that offered by the prosector who used non-stationary anatomical positions to locate it in a position consistent with the SBT. According to these fools, anyone who chooses to seek an alternative explanation is violating the parsimony principle. Your Cuba construction, alas, leaves much to be desired. QED. CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) Cliff,Your comments regarding the T3 wound are on the money. I have heard those who claim to be utilizing Occam "argue" that the "simplest" version of the location of the back wound that takes into account "all the evidence" is that offered by the prosector who used non-stationary anatomical positions to locate it in a position consistent with the SBT. According to these fools, anyone who chooses to seek an alternative explanation is violating the parsimony principle. Your Cuba construction, alas, leaves much to be desired. QED. CD Charles, I greatly appreciate our agreement on the front end. Our disagreements on the back end (my "Cuba construction") I attribute to the elusive nature of the aforementioned covert-op Jungle Of Mirrors. To which, it was Clint Murchison's Cuba construction that needs investigation. Edited August 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now