US Officially Blames Russia

[phiwum]

(citation needed)

Here's what a quick Google search turned up. The source (Barbara Honegger) means nothing to me, but either she's good enough for Caveman1917 or some random internet cite is.

For that matter, of course, we must trust quora.com that Honegger said this, or else find an original citation.

 

[phiwum]

2. The mere fact that you even require a citation for this shows that you are in absolutely no position to judge the "trustworthiness" of the intelligence agencies.

Sorry, what?

 

[phiwum]

Sure it was from you. You argued that we could appeal to authority as opposed to requiring evidence, didn't you?

No one in this thread has even come close to suggesting that every appeal to authority is a good argument.

Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

I agree, but how would you know?

 

[Upchurch]

I wouldn't hang my hat on that difference, if I were you.

There are various historical figures who are known to us only through the testimony of others. When a sufficient number of contemporaries agree that this or that fellow existed, and their accounts are similar enough, and if we there is reason to believe these accounts were written independently and without common prior (lost) source, then we ought to conclude it is probable the person existed (ignoring, of course, fantastical tales).

But we cannot reasonably expect any better evidence than such testimony.

This is largely true for issues of history and law. However, my point is that this is data that anyone, given the right circumstances, can obtain access to. The classification on any information has an expiration date. It it exists, or even if it doesn't, we'll learn about it eventually. Sooner, if one manages to obtain clearance. The point is that it is obtainable.

It isn't privileged in the same sense as the divine insight the Pope supposedly enjoys. It is not obtainable. That's what separates the examples I've given from caveman1917's.

 

[phiwum]

It was reported by someone in a staff meeting where he purportedly said this, which you can easily find by googling.

It was reported by someone claiming to have been in a staff meeting.

How do you know that the person claiming to report it is in fact someone at a staff meeting? What reliable authority do you depend on here?

Let's be clear: I'm not claiming that Casey didn't say this. But I don't know Honegger and I don't know the reliability of the site which claims to quote Honegger, and so I'll be indifferent to this claim, pending some better evidence.

Your argument is indeed an example of appeal to authority, but of a particularly weak sort, far as I can tell.

 

[Upchurch]

Here's what a quick Google search turned up. The source (Barbara Honegger) means nothing to me, but either she's good enough for Caveman1917 or some random internet cite is.

For that matter, of course, we must trust quora.com that Honegger said this, or else find an original citation.

That's one I also found. That user account has exactly one entry recorded. We have no basis for verifying if she is who she says she is or if she heard what she says she heard.

 

[phiwum]

Well by these standards I can just declare the source to be an authority and be done with it.

Sure, in exactly the same way that I can just declare "The Pope is a martian and the Queen a mutant," and conclude the Pope is a martian.

Things are not true because you declare them to be so. To be sure, in informal reasoning, the truth values of certain premises are hard to establish with certainty. You and I might disagree over whether A is an authority, at which point we must determine what would be sufficient evidence and how to acquire it or admit that we are at an impasse.

I won't speak for others here, but I will not even try to convince you the intelligence agency and bipartisan committees are reliable sources. That's not at issue. What is at issue is your blinkered view of the nature of human reasoning.

 

[phiwum]

That's one I also found. That user account has exactly one entry recorded. We have no basis for verifying if she is who she says she is or if she heard what she says she heard.

Barbara Honegger comes up in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well, if you'll Google her. Again, no idea of the reliability of these other web pages. But it is clear that Caveman1917 thinks it's appropriate to take the (apparent) word of Honegger merely on the grounds that she is saying bad things about the intelligence community.

After all, Casey said that. He was head of the CIA, so of course he did, and you show your prejudices in asking for a cite.

 

[Upchurch]

Barbara Honegger comes up in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well, if you'll Google her.

Wow. I really wish I hadn't now.

 

[A'isha]

Barbara Honegger is a parapsychologist who managed to become the assistant to a member of the Hoover Institute who worked for Regan's 1980 transition team, and is currently a 9/11 Truther .

 

[phiwum]

Barbara Honegger is a parapsychologist who managed to become the assistant to a member of the Hoover Institute who worked for Regan's 1980 transition team, and is currently a 9/11 Truther .

So, a perfectly trustworthy authority on what Casey said, that's what you're getting at, right?

It really is beautiful to see Caveman, who claims that every appeal to authority is fallacious, appealing to the authority of such a fine example of skepticism.

 

[portlandatheist]

Just do what Trump does and trust your Trump's guts. He has the best guts. Everyone says so. His guts are yuge!

FIFY.

This is exactly right. We are wasting our time discussing what the intelligence community thinks. Or what economists think about protectionism and tariffs...or what generals think about military strategy..or what scientists have to say about asbestos, global warming, and CFCs. What we really need right now are instincts and Trump has the best instincts, believe me. Everybody says so.

 

[caveman1917]

In deduction, we distinguish between validity (appropriate form, roughly) and soundness (valid with true premises). I apologize that I don't seem to have my old text at hand, so do not recall the appropriate terms for induction and am not sure that the distinction between the two concepts is as clearly made there. But, given that A is a trustworthy authority on X, from A's assertion that X, I can infer that X is probable. The better the evidence of trustworthiness and expert knowledge, the more probable X will be.

We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?

We have formal and deductive frameworks readily available for these cases:

P(X) = x_0
P(A says X | X) = x_1
P(A says X) = x_2
Therefor, P(X | A says X) = x_3

We can keep all the good stuff such as precise definitions, precise methods, etc. Why would we throw all that away to go into vague heuristic territory?

Very similar things happen in deduction. Many times, in a mathematical proof, I use a statement which I am damn sure is a theorem in order to prove something, but I'll be darned if I'm not wrong. It happens. Individuals' abilities to determine the truth of premises is prone to error.

Everyone makes boo-boos every once in a while. All the more reason to compartmentalize the vaguer stuff into well-defined "boxes" (ie estimates of conditional probability) whilst keeping as much of the formal and deductive framework as possible.

In this case, we are worse off, since you and I have no good way for ensuring that, through patient discussion and careful consideration, we will come to agree on whether or not these agencies and the bipartisan committees are reliable authorities.

We could use empirical methods. As a first approximation we could tally all claims by the intelligence agencies which were refuted/verified independently, and then refine further from there on.

Goodness, who would put it in a Bayesian framework?

I would rather determine whether the analogy between the two situations is sufficiently compelling to make a probable diagnosis. I haven't the time or interest to muck about with statistical methods before testing the starter.

You may be under time pressure when your car doesn't start, however we aren't under time pressure to take a position regarding the claims in this thread.

Sorry, I won't be teaching freshmen that they need to use Bayesian methods in order to reliably diagnose starter issues.

Since when is the subjects one teaches freshmen as shortcuts the basis for deciding what is the proper framework of something? One wouldn't teach freshmen the ins and outs of Peano arithmetic in order for them to add two numbers together, yet that doesn't mean Peano arithmetic isn't the proper framework for adding numbers together.

 

[The_Animus]

This thread is painful. It's like people don't even read the thread or forget that an argument was already thoroughly addressed and repeat the same terrible argument again a few pages later.

Do vaccines cause autism? No and if you don't understand why comparing that to this is silly then read the thread.

 

[WilliamSeger]

We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?

Well, you need it anytime probability theory isn't applicable, such as when you have a set of observations that you're trying to explain. There is actually a third form of reasoning that is more appropriate than induction for such cases, called "abduction" or "reasoning to the best explanation." It's how a scientist formulates an hypothesis, for example. Stated as a logical deduction, abductive and inductive arguments are always fallacious, e.g. abduction would commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" if you tried to assert that the reasoning "proved" anything. But in science, it's much more useful than saying, "I can't logically conclude the explanation," because it gives you an hypothesis for further testing, more data collections, etc. to refine your "guess." Perhaps you still don't see the value of such "illogical" reasoning, but science would make little progress without it.

 

[portlandatheist]

It isn't just government intelligence, it is also private sector security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016[...] We've had lots of experience with both of these actors attempting to target our customers in the past and know them well. In fact, our team considers them some of the best adversaries out of all the numerous nation-state, criminal and hacktivist/terrorist groups we encounter on a daily basis. Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of 'living-off-the-land' techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter.[4]

Other cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and FireEye, independently reviewed the malware and came to the same conclusion as CrowdStrike—that expert Russian hacking groups were responsible for the breach.[27]

The malware, X Agent, is Russian made malware. This isn't completely conclusive and attribution is very difficult on the internet but come on people, it is extremely likely it was the Russians.

 

[phiwum]

We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?

We have formal and deductive frameworks readily available for these cases:

P(X) = x_0
P(A says X | X) = x_1
P(A says X) = x_2
Therefor, P(X | A says X) = x_3

We can keep all the good stuff such as precise definitions, precise methods, etc. Why would we throw all that away to go into vague heuristic territory?

Because you and I have to make inferences as life happens, and we haven't the time to do such calculations. In addition, of course, we literally do not have at our disposal the values of x_0, x_1 or x_2. It is a fiction to pretend that those values, and the probabilities of innumerably other statements, are at hand.

Everyone makes boo-boos every once in a while. All the more reason to compartmentalize the vaguer stuff into well-defined "boxes" (ie estimates of conditional probability) whilst keeping as much of the formal and deductive framework as possible.

Goodness, you think the best thing for a mathematician to do is to mix probabilities into his deductive proofs? What a strange solution!

We could use empirical methods. As a first approximation we could tally all claims by the intelligence agencies which were refuted/verified independently, and then refine further from there on.

That's a suggestion. The effect would be, of course, new disagreements over what counts as refutations and what counts as verifications, each of which are again likely sourced to mere testimonies. The other point to notice, of course, is the extraordinary tediousness of trying to list all claims by the various agencies, something you and I are honestly not about to undertake.

You may be under time pressure when your car doesn't start, however we aren't under time pressure to take a position regarding the claims in this thread.

I'm under enough pressure that listing every claim by an intelligence agency and verifying or refuting it sounds like a rather unlikely plan.

Since when is the subjects one teaches freshmen as shortcuts the basis for deciding what is the proper framework of something? One wouldn't teach freshmen the ins and outs of Peano arithmetic in order for them to add two numbers together, yet that doesn't mean Peano arithmetic isn't the proper framework for adding numbers together.

No, Peano arithmetic is not the proper framework for adding numbers together. There are many more suitable frameworks for doing so. PA is a brilliant axiomatization of N, and gives perfect setting for discussion provability of N. But I don't really want to use it for adding two five-digit numbers together. Formal provability is not what I care about when doing addition.

 

[Upchurch]

This thread is painful. It's like people don't even read the thread or forget that an argument was already thoroughly addressed and repeat the same terrible argument again a few pages later.

Do vaccines cause autism? No and if you don't understand why comparing that to this is silly then read the thread.

It was to make a specific point about arguments from authority. But I'm sure you know that because you read the thread?

 

[caveman1917]

So, a perfectly trustworthy authority on what Casey said, that's what you're getting at, right?

So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?

Any reason why the fact of someone having some odd ideas on the side would make her a less "trustworthy" authority on whether the director of an organization said something in a meeting than the "trustworthiness" of the organization in question, which is known for such luminary activities as attempting mind-control and employing disinformation campaigns?

It really is beautiful to see Caveman, who claims that every appeal to authority is fallacious, appealing to the authority of such a fine example of skepticism.

What is really beautiful is to see self-declared "skeptics" promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, you need it anytime probability theory isn't applicable, such as when you have a set of observations that you're trying to explain. There is actually a third form of reasoning that is more appropriate than induction for such cases, called "abduction" or "reasoning to the best explanation." It's how a scientist formulates an hypothesis, for example. Stated as a logical deduction, abductive and inductive arguments are always fallacious, e.g. abduction would commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" if you tried to assert that the reasoning "proved" anything. But in science, it's much more useful than saying, "I can't logically conclude the explanation," because it gives you an hypothesis for further testing, more data collections, etc. to refine your "guess." Perhaps you still don't see the value of such "illogical" reasoning, but science would make little progress without it.

What's being done here isn't science and has nothing to do with science. It's pure ideology packaged as "critical thinking".