Degrees of belief in this-or-that proposition can be represented
on a scale of probability, ranging from 0 to 100%.
Feynman said that a scientist should never allow his beliefs
to be pegged at 0 or at 100, but should keep them in the
interior ... not necessarily in the middle, but in the
interior. The point is that if the needle is totally pegged,
then it means that no amount of evidence can overcome prior
beliefs ... whereas if the needle is not pegged, even if
it is very very close to one end or the other, then *some*
amount of evidence will eventually overcome the priors.
Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, it seems everyone
has a rather high belief that it has a strong military
component:
Military
0 100%
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| [1]
/\
rational
belief
As I read it, Cliff's point is that the press is willing
to accept the notion that it is a peaceful program:
Military
0 100%
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| [2]
/ \
press
I consider this point to be well taken. Very well taken.
The situation makes the head spin. Where do people get
the idea that reporters are skeptical and double-check
their facts? From the Golden Book of Platitudes?
I realize there are occasional instances of journalistic
courage, such as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, and
I deeply respect that --- but it isn't something you can
rely on.
As for Hugh's point that the needle in figure [1] should
not be pegged at 100%, that's true, but it does not detract
from Cliff's point, not in the slightest. It is also
unnecessary to argue about whether the needle in figure
[2] is exactly at zero or not. The basic fact is that
figure [2] is wildly different from figure [1] ... and
minor fiddling with the figures isn't going to change that
basic fact.
In fact, Hugh has reinforced the point that the press is out
to lunch, by mentioning numerous rich details that the press
could have covered, but didn't.
=============================
Tangent:
Here's another candidate for the list of all-time most amazing
press failures: Remember the "secret bombing" of Cambodia at
the start of the Nixon administration? Secret? Really????
-- It wasn't kept a secret from the Cambodians; they sure
knew they were being bombed.
-- It wasn't kept a secret from the North Vietnamese.
-- It wasn't kept a secret from the Chinese or the Soviets.
The only people who were in the dark about this "secret" were
the American public. This was particularly ludicrous near the
US border, because you could walk into Canada or Mexico and
buy a newspaper that had full coverage of the bombing ... but
the US papers were nearly silent about it.
Secret bombing? Secret bombing??? How can any sentient being
entertain even for a moment the idea of secret bombing?