US Officially Blames Russia

Upchurch said:
Tell me:

What is the moon made of? How do know? Have you been there yourself?

Do vaccines cause autism? Have you conducted studies to confirm the consensus?

Is Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity true? How would you know?


Now, what do all these things have in common with the US intelligence community's report?
Click to expand...

The first set is information pursued through the scientific method.

The intelligence report is assembled by people who reject it. We have people that believe in lie detector tests (FBI), that torture works (CIA), and support working in an environment that completely precludes open peer review (NSA).

Intelligence officials, like the police, are not seekers of truth. Then the report is getting filtered to us by congress which is filled with people that believe things such as a woman cannot get pregnant from rape.


I was pretty open to the conclusions in the report. You have convinced me to reject the..
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The first set is information pursued through the scientific method.
Click to expand...

So change the examples to the existence of Hannibal, or of some minor pre-Socratic philosophers. History isn't done by scientific method (at least not this sort of history), but by examining testimonies and stories.

The intelligence report is assembled by people who reject it. We have people that believe in lie detector tests (FBI), that torture works (CIA), and support working in an environment that completely precludes open peer review (NSA).

Intelligence officials, like the police, are not seekers of truth. Then the report is getting filtered to us by congress which is filled with people that believe things such as a woman cannot get pregnant from rape.


I was pretty open to the conclusions in the report. You have convinced me to reject the..
Click to expand...

I don't think that we'll settle the question of whether the intelligence agencies are reliable sources of information (though your complaint about the NSA and peer review is bizarre). I believe them to be non-partisan, trained in this sort of activity and with no obvious reason to lie. Couple this with the bipartisan group of Congressmen who've seen the evidence and find it compelling, and I'd think the story is probable.

You may have different opinions or find other reasons more compelling. Not every disagreement of this sort can be resolved.
 
phiwum said:
I don't think that we'll settle the question of whether the intelligence agencies are reliable sources of information (though your complaint about the NSA and peer review is bizarre). I believe them to be non-partisan, trained in this sort of activity and with no obvious reason to lie. Couple this with the bipartisan group of Congressmen who've seen the evidence and find it compelling, and I'd think the story is probable.

You may have different opinions or find other reasons more compelling. Not every disagreement of this sort can be resolved.
Click to expand...

They are partisan, they are not trained to find truth, and they have many reasons to lie. Their role is similar to the police, complete with all the problems endemic to that institution.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Are you saying the scientific method wasn't used in researching and confirming general relativity?
Click to expand...

No. I thought you were joking because your response did not, in any way, reflect actually having read my post and missed the point entirely.

If you weren't joking, would you care to try again?
 
Upchurch said:
No. I thought you were joking because your response did not, in any way, reflect actually having read my post and missed the point entirely.

If you weren't joking, would you care to try again?
Click to expand...

Phiwum seems to have understood it clearly.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Phiwum seems to have understood it clearly.
Click to expand...

I understood that you focused on an unfortunate feature of his examples, easily rectified with other examples.

In fact, that relativity was allegedly confirmed scientifically makes little difference to his point. As far as you and I are concerned, we only know this, too, through testimony. If it is correct, then it is conceivable that we could eventually train ourselves enough to evaluate the data, but that too is a form of testimony. It is barely possible that we could redo some of the experiments which serve to confirm relativity, but you and I know that we will not do that, that we are instead happy to take the word of scientists on this matter.
 
phiwum said:
I understood that you focused on an unfortunate feature of his examples, easily rectified with other examples.

In fact, that relativity was allegedly confirmed scientifically makes little difference to his point. As far as you and I are concerned, we only know this, too, through testimony. If it is correct, then it is conceivable that we could eventually train ourselves enough to evaluate the data, but that too is a form of testimony. It is barely possible that we could redo some of the experiments which serve to confirm relativity, but you and I know that we will not do that, that we are instead happy to take the word of scientists on this matter.
Click to expand...

There is more to it than that. The process itself of science (even the methods in social sciences) is understandable and sets guideposts that make it easier to assess adherence and consensus.

That simply doesn't exist in law enforcement and intelligence. Everything points to them operating in the exact opposite manner.
 
phiwum said:
It is barely possible that we could redo some of the experiments which serve to confirm relativity, but you and I know that we will not do that, that we are instead happy to take the word of scientists on this matter.
Click to expand...

Likewise, there are steps you could take in order to get the security clearance necessary to view all the evidence. However, barring putting forth the enormous time and effort involved, we must rely on valid authorities.
 
Upchurch said:
Likewise, there are steps you could take in order to get the security clearance necessary to view all the evidence. However, barring putting forth the enormous time and effort involved, we must rely on valid authorities.
Click to expand...

They are not valid authorities.

Phiwum is right that it is all testimony. That is why science is an ingenious system for testimony to be presented, evaluated, and finally methods for idiots like me to evaluate claims. These agencies fail at this at every level.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is more to it than that. The process itself of science (even the methods in social sciences) is understandable and sets guideposts that make it easier to assess adherence and consensus.

That simply doesn't exist in law enforcement and intelligence. Everything points to them operating in the exact opposite manner.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by assessing adherence and consensus in science, or what that has to do with Upchurch's point that you and I are very content to appeal to authority on a daily basis.

When did Columbus first land in the "new world"? Damn straight I'll accept the claims of history books, absent some clearly compelling evidence not to. (When it comes to questions of a more political nature, publishers of commonly available textbooks feel some pressure to give a patriotic view and so should be treated more carefully, of course.)

Look, Bob The Coward, if you are not disputing the fact that appeal to authority can be an acceptable form of argument in certain situations, then you have no beef with Upchurch. You're merely confusing issues by responding to him.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
They are not valid authorities.

Phiwum is right that it is all testimony. That is why science is an ingenious system for testimony to be presented, evaluated, and finally methods for idiots like me to evaluate claims. These agencies fail at this at every level.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that intelligence agencies should operate at the same level of openness and transparency as science (should) really is being a bit silly.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are not valid authorities.
Click to expand...

How are they not? They are trained in this, they have the data, and there is a consensus across agencies. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, but it silly to deny that they are the authorities in this.

If not them, then who?
 
Last edited:
BTW, the classified 2002 Iraq intelligence evaluation was finally declassified in 2015, and we now know that BushCo misled the country about what was in there. It's full of caveats and disclaimers that, while we knew a lot about the previous programs which Saddam said were discontinued, there was little confidence in the sources and intel about any possible current WMD programs. But BushCo simply ignored those doubts and presented speculation as fact because the neocons controlling Bush's puppet strings badly wanted to invade Iraq.

Is Obama also misleading us about the confidence in the classified evidence? The only way I know to find out is to have a full Congressional investigation, but Trump apologists and sycophants prefer willful ignorance so they can maintain their personal incredulity. Protecting the Boy King's fragile ego is more important to them than protecting the country.
 
Upchurch said:
How are they not? They are trained in this, they have the data, and there is a consensus across agencies. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, but it silly to deny that they are the authorities in this.

If not them, then who?
Click to expand...

Just do what Trump does and trust your guts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom