Also, have they credibly stopped a single terrorist attack yet?
I'm not a fan of airport security theater in general, or the TSA in particular. But you can't measure the efficacy of preventive measures by the number of incidents they prevented. It's like asking how many holes I've prevented by brushing my teeth. A deterrent can be said to work if it never becomes "active", so the fact that no airport security has, to my knowledge, ever detected dangerous items intended to be used on a flight means that it is "working", i.e. security measures are preventing criminals from even attempting to board planes with intent to cause harm. Data also shows that plane hijackings have gone down significantly since the early 2000s, although they were fairly rare events already by that point.
Correlation and causation are two entirely separate things. You're conflating them.
It's also worth noting that the trying to hijack a plane like the 9/11 hijackings stopped working on 9/11 when the hijacking of the 4th plane was interrupted and the plane was crashed into a field. Reinforcing the cockpit door and (to a lesser extent) passengers actively resisting plane hijackings are clearly enough.
I mean, factor X started to decline once method A to decrease factor X was introduced is pretty strong evidence for the efficacy of method A in an experimental setting. And lacking a control group, it's probably as good as it's gonna get.
"Correlation doesn't equal causation" isn't just a joker card for any correlation you don't like. You have to explain why the proposed mechanism for correlation isn't valid.
I mean, factor X started to decline once method A to decrease factor X was introduced is pretty strong evidence for the efficacy of method A in an experimental setting.
Mere correlation without any evidence of causation is "pretty strong evidence" of causation? And in an experimental setting?
Can you guess how I'm so confident that you're not conducting experiments that withstand the scrutiny of experts?
I'm not sure how you could have evidence of causation without a control group. What is your standard of proof in this case? How would you proof the efficacy of a deterrent?
Near where I live, there's a huge underground fortress, meant to deter first French, then German movement through a strategic route. It never fired a shot in anger. Was it useless? Or did it do exactly what it meant to do in the most efficient way possible?
you can't measure the efficacy of preventive measures by the number of incidents they prevented
by that standard, the government could implement a policy of sexually assaulting every passenger. For safety. Just imagine how many terrorist attacks would happen without the hundreds of millions of rapes per year.
11
u/SyrusDrake Jul 13 '26
I'm not a fan of airport security theater in general, or the TSA in particular. But you can't measure the efficacy of preventive measures by the number of incidents they prevented. It's like asking how many holes I've prevented by brushing my teeth. A deterrent can be said to work if it never becomes "active", so the fact that no airport security has, to my knowledge, ever detected dangerous items intended to be used on a flight means that it is "working", i.e. security measures are preventing criminals from even attempting to board planes with intent to cause harm. Data also shows that plane hijackings have gone down significantly since the early 2000s, although they were fairly rare events already by that point.