3 ms·

Please stop accusing people of being 100% confident. It's such a weak, insulting tactic. What is the alternate hypothesis that's "marginally less likely"? (P

by mundo 10y ago

Please 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      Those 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 ago
Alternative 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.

by mundo 10y ago

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 ago
I 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Those 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 ago

Alternative 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.