LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (05/10/88)
The debate occurring here over KAL007 mirrors a debate that has been continuing in Arms-d for some time, over the issue of launching missiles upon warning of attack. What has become clear to me is that debate often leaves the real axis and takes on a surrealistic tone -- no rational argument is possible when participants do not share the same rules of evidence, when they do not agree on basic assumptions regarding plausibility, and most importantly, when they are driven by their own theories in a way that accepts only confirming evidence and denies the relevance or plausibility of contrary evidence. In short, it is impossible to prove something to a person who is determined to disbelieve the proof, especially if that proof would fundamentally change his own world view. The relevance to RISKS is that many discussions of how to prevent intolerable risks and how to define responsibility for such prevention presume a common standard of reference for relevance etc.. That's in general a bad assumption, as this debate over KAL007 clearly illustrates.