Image cited from here

THE ARTICLE IS A SUMMARIZATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE WORK BY STEPHEN MARTIN PUBLISHED HERE

The debate on Intelligence being an art or science allows the IC(Intelligence Community) to prioritize the way in which the analysts are recruited and trained. As opined by Folker, the debate allows the analyst being trained to question intelligence produced as being a function of subjective intuitive judgments or else a function of structured, systematic analytical techniques and methods.

The scientific method has traditionally been used in natural sciences to evaluate and develop a hypothesis based on the observation(description), evaluation(explanation), and experimentation(prediction) of the hypothesis.

Extensive literature addresses intelligence analysis in primarily social scientific terms. Kent, Platt,Random, Heuer, Knorr, and Ben-Israel advocate the position of Intelligence being an approximation of social science and analysts use an approximation of the scientific method derived from the social sciences to determine meaning from the facts embedded in raw intelligence.

Intelligence analysis is more uncertain than other forms of social science due to (1) externally imposed and frequently short deadlines which necessitate analysis prior to the acquisition of sufficient information, (2) an inability to control the variables under study, (3) an unknown data quality due to imperfections in the collection process, (4) the possibility of deception, (5) an emphasis on prediction, and (6) a focus on utility for the decisionmaker.

Intelligence analysis can be labelled as an artistic or creative process to idetify threats from a fragmented data under temporal constrains, and hence an art.

Folker argues that “qualitative intelligence analysis is an art because it is an intuitive process based on instinct, education, and experience.”Similarly, Paul Cooke describes intelligence analysis as art, “Art is the creative and imaginative thinking required to manipulate information in a way that reveals new information or new perspective.”

Arguing in the favour of Intelligence analysis as an art lowers the standards of accuracy expected from the discipline, as highlighted by Lowenthall in his quote “Intelligence is not and never will be a science and anyone who tries to promote it will be doing our profession a grave disservice. … If we start equating intelligence to a science the unrealistic expectations will only go up. Intelligence is an art. It is an intellectual activity. An art”

Since, the consumer is the only one who can determine the artistic value of the intelligence, this shifts the evaluative emphasis away from analytic accuracy and towards consumer appreciation, which might not be a good shift and leading to less accountability on the part of IC.

Robert Folker, concluded that intelligence analysis is both an art and a science, “The fallacy in the art or science debate may be the either/or proposition. If qualitative intelligence analysis is not exclusively art or a science, then it may best be considered a combination of both intuitive and scientific method.”

Ben-Israel’s suggestion that “the dichotomy between scientist and artist is a misleading pseudo-dichotomy which usually stems from excessive respect for science.” Ben-Israel then quoted Albert Einstein as saying “there is no logical path leading to these laws. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.” From this, Ben-Israel concluded that the intelligence analyst “must have creative imagination, a critical mind and scientific integrity.”

Intelligence analysis is to analogous medical diagnosis but only with a few facts and the context in which it is practiced.

Heuer suggested that analysis might in fact be neither. Heuer further claimed the debate itself was “fruitless” because although he learned about art and science, he did not learn anything new about intelligence analysis from this debate. According to Heuer, “The range of activities that fall under the rubric of intelligence analysis spans the entire range of human cognition, and it is meaningless to try to divide this into just two categories, art and science, or to say that intelligence analysis is only one or the other.” Such dissent takes a middle ground by not debating whether intelligence analysis is an art or a science, but locating it either equidistant between science and art or outside the bounds of either.

The debate is relevant for a variety of intelligence practitioners because it allows the labelling of the discipline along with the methods for improvement in the feild. While the paper certainly does not resolve the debate, it brings forth the works of various authors to improve the scientific aspect of the analysis and not so much about the artistic element of the analysis.

The ratio should be between structured methodology and unstructured insight and creativity, with some assuming more of a role for structure and others for assuming more of a role for the unstructured is a point of departure for various students debating intelligence analysis as a science or art.

I would like to clearly state my bias towards the scientific side of intelligence analysis, because of the wealth of literature available to support the claim. I would like to counter some of the arguments from the art side. The majority of the arguments whilst arguing for intelligence analysis as art looked at the subjective intuitively associated with the process, but with the increase of speed in big data analysis and datafication of the society, intelligence analysis could well be assisted by the development of AI/ML as is already evident from the surveillance industry comprising Palantir, NSO etc.

However, intelligence analysis cannot be completely a science due to varied perceptions we have of society and reality, until the society and reality start becoming bounded, as in the case of echo chambers emerging from the social media recommendation engines. Thus, I would personally argue for the middle ground with intelligence analysis being more than 50% science and the rest art.

Image cited from here

THE ARTICLE IS A SUMMARIZATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE WORK BY STEPHEN MARTIN PUBLISHED HERE

The debate on Intelligence being an art or science allows the IC(Intelligence Community) to prioritize the way in which the analysts are recruited and trained. As opined by Folker, the debate allows the analyst being trained to question intelligence produced as being a function of subjective intuitive judgments or else a function of structured, systematic analytical techniques and methods.

The scientific method has traditionally been used in natural sciences to evaluate and develop a hypothesis based on the observation(description), evaluation(explanation), and experimentation(prediction) of the hypothesis.

Extensive literature addresses intelligence analysis in primarily social scientific terms. Kent, Platt,Random, Heuer, Knorr, and Ben-Israel advocate the position of Intelligence being an approximation of social science and analysts use an approximation of the scientific method derived from the social sciences to determine meaning from the facts embedded in raw intelligence.

Intelligence analysis is more uncertain than other forms of social science due to (1) externally imposed and frequently short deadlines which necessitate analysis prior to the acquisition of sufficient information, (2) an inability to control the variables under study, (3) an unknown data quality due to imperfections in the collection process, (4) the possibility of deception, (5) an emphasis on prediction, and (6) a focus on utility for the decisionmaker.

Intelligence analysis can be labelled as an artistic or creative process to idetify threats from a fragmented data under temporal constrains, and hence an art.

Folker argues that “qualitative intelligence analysis is an art because it is an intuitive process based on instinct, education, and experience.”Similarly, Paul Cooke describes intelligence analysis as art, “Art is the creative and imaginative thinking required to manipulate information in a way that reveals new information or new perspective.”

Arguing in the favour of Intelligence analysis as an art lowers the standards of accuracy expected from the discipline, as highlighted by Lowenthall in his quote “Intelligence is not and never will be a science and anyone who tries to promote it will be doing our profession a grave disservice. … If we start equating intelligence to a science the unrealistic expectations will only go up. Intelligence is an art. It is an intellectual activity. An art”

Since, the consumer is the only one who can determine the artistic value of the intelligence, this shifts the evaluative emphasis away from analytic accuracy and towards consumer appreciation, which might not be a good shift and leading to less accountability on the part of IC.

Robert Folker, concluded that intelligence analysis is both an art and a science, “The fallacy in the art or science debate may be the either/or proposition. If qualitative intelligence analysis is not exclusively art or a science, then it may best be considered a combination of both intuitive and scientific method.”

Ben-Israel’s suggestion that “the dichotomy between scientist and artist is a misleading pseudo-dichotomy which usually stems from excessive respect for science.” Ben-Israel then quoted Albert Einstein as saying “there is no logical path leading to these laws. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.” From this, Ben-Israel concluded that the intelligence analyst “must have creative imagination, a critical mind and scientific integrity.”

Intelligence analysis is to analogous medical diagnosis but only with a few facts and the context in which it is practiced.

Heuer suggested that analysis might in fact be neither. Heuer further claimed the debate itself was “fruitless” because although he learned about art and science, he did not learn anything new about intelligence analysis from this debate. According to Heuer, “The range of activities that fall under the rubric of intelligence analysis spans the entire range of human cognition, and it is meaningless to try to divide this into just two categories, art and science, or to say that intelligence analysis is only one or the other.” Such dissent takes a middle ground by not debating whether intelligence analysis is an art or a science, but locating it either equidistant between science and art or outside the bounds of either.

The debate is relevant for a variety of intelligence practitioners because it allows the labelling of the discipline along with the methods for improvement in the feild. While the paper certainly does not resolve the debate, it brings forth the works of various authors to improve the scientific aspect of the analysis and not so much about the artistic element of the analysis.

The ratio should be between structured methodology and unstructured insight and creativity, with some assuming more of a role for structure and others for assuming more of a role for the unstructured is a point of departure for various students debating intelligence analysis as a science or art.

I would like to clearly state my bias towards the scientific side of intelligence analysis, because of the wealth of literature available to support the claim. I would like to counter some of the arguments from the art side. The majority of the arguments whilst arguing for intelligence analysis as art looked at the subjective intuitively associated with the process, but with the increase of speed in big data analysis and datafication of the society, intelligence analysis could well be assisted by the development of AI/ML as is already evident from the surveillance industry comprising Palantir, NSO etc.

However, intelligence analysis cannot be completely a science due to varied perceptions we have of society and reality, until the society and reality start becoming bounded, as in the case of echo chambers emerging from the social media recommendation engines. Thus, I would personally argue for the middle ground with intelligence analysis being more than 50% science and the rest art.