Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The McNamara fallacy (also known as the quantitative fallacy), [1] named for Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven.
McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making an argument using only quantitative observations (measurements, statistical or numerical values) and discounting subjective information that focuses on quality (traits, features, or relationships).
Project 100,000, also known as McNamara's 100,000, McNamara's Folly, McNamara's Morons, and McNamara's Misfits, [1] [2] was a controversial 1960s program by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit soldiers who would previously have been below military mental or medical standards.
The subject being studied is not well defined, [8] or some of its aspects are easy to quantify while others hard to quantify or there is no known quantification method (see McNamara fallacy). For example: While IQ tests are available and numeric it is difficult to define what they measure, as intelligence is an elusive concept.
"The fallacy refers to McNamara's early belief as to what would have led the United States to victory in the Vietnam War—specifically, his quantification of success in the war (e.g., in terms of enemy body count), ignoring other variables. The U.S. defeat gave evidence that his belief was a fallacy." Thoughts?
AOL latest headlines, entertainment, sports, articles for business, health and world news.
McNamara was a Camelot cabinet kid; he played with Caroline and John-John, hung out at the pool with Robert F. Kennedy’s children at their Hickory Hill estate and sat with JFK for a screening of ...
Boudry coined the term fallacy fork. [27] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork). [27]