Airline Pilots and Security

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Unless I’m just interpreting it other than face value, that is essentially what you said.

I guess I will have to lay it out in explicit detail then. Here is my quote which you like

But the argument that the fact there have been no major attacks since the inception of the TSA implies the TSA works is not supported by the numbers.

You then paraphrased as

“There hasn’t[sic] been any major attacks since the inception of TSA, so that implies their organization isn’t very effective.”

So my statement was there is an argument "The fact that there have been no major attacks since the inception of the TSA implies that the TSA works". I then further stated that argument is not supported by the numbers.

Let the assertion that there have been no major attacks since the inception of the TSA be X. Let the assertion that the TSA works be Y. The argument could then be cast abstractly as X implies Y. I said that argument is not supported by the numbers, in these abstract terms, it is not true that X implies Y (or that is not supported by the numbers).

You then paraphrased that as

"There hasn't [sic] been no major attacks since the inception of the TSA implies that there is organization is not effective".

That argument, which you attribute to me, in terms of the same variables, would be X implies not Y.

Does that help explain how there is a material difference between the paraphrase and the original statements? If not, here is a further explanation using the rules of logic.

The rules of logic are that saying 'X implies Y' is false is the logical equivalent of saying its contrapositive, namely, 'not y implies not x'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) In concrete terms here that means my two statements would be the equivalent of "If the TSA does not work, then there there may have been major attacks since the inception of the TSA". But you see, I did NOT say that either.

Your paraphrase, improperly attributed to me, is abstractly 'x implies not y', which is the negation of my assertion. Of course I would assert it is false, as it is the negation of what I said.

And such misattribution is a classic example of the straw man fallacy.

The book "Game of Logic" by Lewis Carrol (author of Alice in Wonderland) is a fun way to study these things.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Explain?

Please my post #70 above (in response to your #69), which includes a reference to the scholarly literature on the subject. If you have further questions after reading the article, I am happy to discuss.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I’m still not sure how you come to that conclusion, but okay.

No it really doesn’t. To be clear, I’m not trying to create a ****ing contest here, but I’m also just not following your side of the coin I suppose. I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement here, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your rationale.

Well thanks for trying to understand the other side of the coin. Seems like an honest failure to be clear enough. It is often the case that apparent disagreements online are due to not understanding things given the limitations of this type of forum.

I am hopeful that my detailed explanation in post #110 and citations to the literature in post #70 will help clarify such. But if they don't, this has been polite, so I am happy to try and further discuss.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

A "balance of evidence" would involved listing both arguments for and against a given measure. So far, I haven't seen anyone do that.

OK, so let's try, shall we. I have listed briefly I think a majority of the major evidence that suggests the TSA is not a cost effective way to improve the safety of the traveling public.

Some arguments in favor of the TSA screenings being effective that have been adduced are:
There have been no major attacks since the inception of the TSA in November 2001.
They confiscate a lot of items from travelers, some are weapons which could be used in an attack.

Any others which you find particularly convincing?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I suppose we’ll agree to disagree.

OK, that sounds good. It has been polite, so as I noted, happy to discuss further in the future in you like.

It has also been somewhat useful to me as I am giving a talk on this subject in January.

Regards.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

One area that, I believe, that TSA has had an impact on is the guys that would have put a surprise in the wife's bag to save the cost of a divorce. That used to be a thing.

OK, I'm clueless. Can you provide a hint or clue?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I had thought there were more of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks.

Ah. I see right.

When I count the attacks for rate calculations relative to the TSA I only count the ones departing US terminals since that is where the TSA operates.

But yes, such attacks are quite rare.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

TSA does not have a great record, according to their own testing. In most airports, once you clear security you are free to wander around shops, etc, and there usually are no more security checks.

In terms of this point specifically, here is a website which points out how to construct weapons with items that can be purchased after the TSA security checkpoint - http://terminalcornucopia.com

I don't believe there are any security experts, not employed by the TSA or DHS, who think the TSA is anything more than security theater - not effective but makes some people feel better. And for that we pay $8 billion per year as well as all the hassles mentioned near the start of this thread.

My own opinion is that the solution to the complex tradeoff between security and convenience should basically be controlled by the airlines in a market driven process. See http://realairlinesecurity.org .