Torture: does it work?

[EponiCo]

While I can agree with your general idea, just noting that I don't think most people probably mean "there's not a single case where torture works" when they say it doesn't. Accuracy and all, yes, but you are setting the accuracy with the question.
I guess it depends on how cynical you are but that there are situations where it works with say 99% probability is pretty shrugworthy. Though experiments excluding a lot of factors and possibilities are great to clarify positions but you are always running the risk of excluding the factors that are important for the real life application.
Or in other words, if someone says torture doesn't work and in 90% of all the cases it doesn't, he would be right. You'd possibly still be able to select 1% of the cases so that in each there is a 90% chance that it works. *shrugs*

[Rumblood]

A broken clock is right twice a day. Does that mean it works?

[Bobthehero]

Although it's dirty if possible I'd have thought some form of black mail would be preferable to any torture. Torture may seem like a quicker way I suppose but it's undeniably a disgusting, and far from reliable means of getting information. Everyone has some form of leverage that can be exacted through blackmail. And although again it can result in unreliable information,  I'd have said that's a much better way of going about it if you have to.

See the movie Act of Valor, while its a really pro-american movie and the acting is terrible (duh, they have actual SEALs playing SEALs, but that's not the point) the only ''torture scene'' so to speak is when an interrogator does his job on a guy, instead of torturing him, he simply threatens to de-port the family of the guy he is interrogating.

[Xant]

A broken clock is right twice a day. Does that mean it works?

What doesn't make you stronger, kills you. Does that mean my hovercraft is full of eels?

[Rumblood]

What doesn't make you stronger, kills you. Does that mean my hovercraft is full of eels?

Nice try. Since you don't understand the simple concept, the point is that just because something appears successful occasionally, doesn't mean that it is.

[zagibu]

There are only ever probabilities. Nothing is of probability 1.0, which isn't just certainty, it's infinite certainty. No one is suggesting that torture works with the probability of 1.0. The scenario you give is not problematic in the least: torture is still likely to work, if said bank director knows the code and you know what you are doing. How many false codes do you have to be given before you give up and accept that the director doesn't know the code? That's up to you and your assessment of the director. So say you torture the director for five hours in the most horrific and creative ways one can possibly imagine, do you think it's probable you will be given the code if the director knows the code? If yes, torture is effective and works.

It seems you are assuming that torture isn't worth it unless you can be sure it works. But if you get the code 90% of the time, does it not work? Is it not effective? What method is sure to be more effective every time? "Since I can't be sure torture will work I just won't try at all" isn't an answer. Hell, even if it works one time in a thousand it's worth trying, it's better than nothing, if you really need to get that code.

Well, I give up. You seem to want to discuss on an abstract level that simply isn't useful for these kinds of things. You take an artificial and grossly simplified scenario I only used to hint at the problems in the concept, then you ignore them and use the scenario to rate the process in general. Which is nonsense.

[Christo]

Come over and talk about politics instead, oy!

[Xant]

Nice try. Since you don't understand the simple concept, the point is that just because something appears successful occasionally, doesn't mean that it is.

You need to work on your analogies. I've never seen more broken analogies than your clock and cold fusion ones. I understand the concept, it's just that it's utterly irrelevant to everything.

Well, I give up. You seem to want to discuss on an abstract level that simply isn't useful for these kinds of things. You take an artificial and grossly simplified scenario I only used to hint at the problems in the concept, then you ignore them and use the scenario to rate the process in general. Which is nonsense.

You make a lot of arguments by assertion here.

[Xant]

This topic is once again pertinent ;)

[IR_Kuoin]

To some extent, it does work.

[Xant]

To some extent, it does work.

I guess it's not black then...... 

[Molly]

I guess it's not black then...... 

C'mon... that's beneath you, Xant. Too cheap of a pun

[Leshma]

Wwhhen sexyy yes
Tumbling doll of flesh
Sleepping with corpse is not torture
Nekromantik
Young boyss aree putrid ggirls llike sex
Salo 120 days of sodom