3 ms·
No. I believe the official version (that the reason the intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of hacking the DNC is because believe it did) because the alt
by mundo 10y ago
No. I believe the official version (that the reason the intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of hacking the DNC is because believe it did) because the alternative is less plausible and there's no evidence for it. That's pure Occam's Razor, no faith involved.
The FBI has lied and will lie again, getting me to believe they lied about something is not hard, but they don't generally do it in big, obvious ways that are easy to disprove and involve a lot of co-conspirators and don't accomplish anything.
- mistermann 10y agoI don't necessarily disagree, but a guilty charge shouldn't be based on the "most plausible" explanation.
- wyager 10y agoThat's not how Occam's razor works. You don't pick the most likely single outcome and then just assume that to be true with 100% confidence. Occam's razor is just an informal statement of the fact that you should assign a higher a priori probability to simpler hypotheses. It doesn't mean you should ignore any marginally less likely hypothesis.
- mundo 10y agoPlease stop accusing people of being 100% confident. It's such a weak, insulting tactic. What is the alternate hypothesis that's "marginally less likely"? (Please remember what question we're trying to answer. It is not "Who hacked the DNC?". We are not in a position to know; hell, we don't even know there was a hack. It is also not "Is the FBI trustworthy?" Of course they're not. It is "Why are US intelligence agencies saying they have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?" The base hypothesis is "Because they do." The alternate hypothesis is what you're supplying.)
- wyager 10y ago> Please stop accusing people of being 100% confident. To quote you: > No. I believe the official version > What is the alternate hypothesis that's "marginally less likely"? That Russia didn't hack the DNC. I think it's actually marginally more likely than that Russia didn't hack the DNC than that they did, but I was humoring you.
- mundo 10y agoI repeat: > "Why are US intelligence agencies saying they have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?" The base hypothesis is "Because they do." The alternate hypothesis is what you're supplying.
- wyager 10y agoWhat do you mean by "base hypothesis" or "alternate hypothesis"? Those aren't real terms in hypothesis testing. I think you might want to do some reading on Bayesian reasoning, and its relationship to Occam's razor.
- mundo 10y agoThose are not highfalutin technical terms, just casual everyday language. Stop waffling and tell me what this theory is that I'm a brainwashed sheep for not believing!
- mistermann 10y agoAlternative hypotheses are that they don't like to have their activities monitored, and they like people that can be manipulated with propaganda. Trump seems potentially problematic in both respects. If these organizations are involved in questionable undertakings (it's their job, so I think we can agree the answer is yes), it's not much of a stretch of the imagination that they like to operate without supervision.
- unclepresent 10y agoeveryone is innocent until proven guilty... there is no any prove in report that hacking even took place, date, time, size of materials, exact mechanism of attack, which email address was compromized, which link was attached to email, what happened after link got openned, why outlook did not block link, why anti virus did not block exploit be installed, which exploit , why firewall accepted outcoming traffic to unknown source outside of trsuted network ... why russians ?