2 ms·

> You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you

> You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you do not have. I listed 4 bullet points. You've agreed with 2 of them (the first, that a russian-state associated IP was used in the hack), and 3, that the data if published would be beneficial to russia (by being beneficial to trump). Those 4 evidence based claims, some of which you've admitted you agree are true, point to a simple answer: Russia was the culprit. Yes, there are other alternative explanations, but all are vastly more complex, or fail to sufficiently address all of the evidence presented, hence my reference Occam's razor. > Now, however, any time anyone discusses the content of the emails, true believers such as yourself will interrupt to talk about how Trump won only because of Russians. I've never said this. > I get it. You don't want to steel-man alternative ideas, because "Russians" is what you have been told and "Russians" is what you believe. But almost any other explanation is as plausible as Russians. No, that's my point. That was my steel man. Your argument is incoherent. You're free to prove me wrong. Its easy: provide the alternative explanation that is more likely than it haivng been russia. Provide an explanation that better explains the facts we agree on: 1. A russian state-affiliated IP was used in the attack 2. The data stolen and leaked was geopolitically beneficial to russia. Again, here's my simple explanation of these facts that we agree on: "A russian state-backed attack stole and leaked these documents". What's your simpler explanation? Prove me wrong. It should be easy. Looking directly at the evidence, the simplest, and far and away most likely answer, is that Russia was the culprit. Other answers are, perhaps, possible, but that doesn't make them as likely, unless you want to pretend that two explanations of the same phenomena are always equally likely. That's simply a failure to reason correctly, and I'd expect better of someone who wants to bring up fallacies. Put another way, there's some evidence that supports the claim that it was Russia. There's no evidence that supports the claim that it was the Ukraine. This doesn't mean that it had to be Russia, yes, alternative explanations are possible, but looking solely at the evidence, all of it points to Russia, and none of it points to anyone else. You can create alternate hypothesis, but they all rely on the evidence being somehow misleading ("The US government is lying", "The Ukranian teenager spoofed a Russian attack"). By Occam's Razor, those explanations are less likely, because they are more complex. You're welcome to present some additional evidence that makes those explanations more likely, but you haven't presented any, you've simply said the evidence we have isn't conclusive (which I agree with), and because of that all possibilities are equally likely, which is terrible reasoning.

rendall 5y ago
No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact. All of those points which you attribute agreement to me, that you assert to be known are not, actually known, but again, are assertions only. The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known. An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof. A skeptic should be able to look at all the evidence and verify it for oneself. One cannot do that with each important assertion. Instead, one must rely on assertions by "persons familiar with the matter". A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations. This is a no-brainer. Yet here we are, talking about 2-year old IP addresses as if it were some smoking gun.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack? If not, how do you believe the DNC hacked? 4. Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? (keep in mind that the Democratic party has recently been far more anti-Russia than the Republican Party, so the evidence I have suggests that Democratic foreign policy would be more aggressive towards Russia than Republican. Obama, Trump, and Biden's actual foreign policy actions, e.g. in Syria, support this hypothesis) 5. Do you believe the account in [0] is reliable? If not, what is your explanation of what occurred, and what evidence do you use to reach your conclusion? 6. Do you believe that this[1] highly redacted senate report is evidence? That is, do you put believe that anything can be inferred from the fact that US intelligence services believe that this attack was undertaken by Russia, and have presented that conclusion (and, presumably, some evidence supporting this conclusion) to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Related does it hold any value to you that no one on the SIC has denied that this hack was Russian-originated (and in fact a number of Repulbican members have agreed that he hack was done by Russian state actors)? Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions, you must have some belief that is most likely, even if none is held with much confidence, please provide that belief. > An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof. My claim is that based on the evidence we have, the most likely explanation is that the attack was undertaken by Russia. What about this is "extraordinary"? If you mean the broader claim, "Russia did a successful cyberattack against the US", I again don't see what is extraordinary about that claim. > A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations. I'm confused, I'm not making any claim about the any president. I'm making claims about a cyberattack. I'm unclear what about "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" is a dangerous claim. I'd make the same claim, in general, about the US. I'm quite confident that the US undertakes cyber-espionage against Russia too. I just don't have any particular examples at hand, but if you cited one, I wouldn't consider it "dangerous". > The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known. I'm confused, I'm referencing an[0] indictment by Robert Muller against the named GRU agents accused of carrying out the attack in question. There's no journalists involved at all. [0]: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download [1]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

rendall 5y ago

No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact. All of those points which you attribute agreement to me, that you assert to be known are not, actually known, but again, are assertions only. The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known. An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof. A skeptic should be able to look at all the evidence and verify it for oneself. One cannot do that with each important assertion. Instead, one must rely on assertions by "persons familiar with the matter". A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations. This is a no-brainer. Yet here we are, talking about 2-year old IP addresses as if it were some smoking gun.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack? If not, how do you believe the DNC hacked? 4. Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? (keep in mind that the Democratic party has recently been far more anti-Russia than the Republican Party, so the evidence I have suggests that Democratic foreign policy would be more aggressive towards Russia than Republican. Obama, Trump, and Biden's actual foreign policy actions, e.g. in Syria, support this hypothesis) 5. Do you believe the account in [0] is reliable? If not, what is your explanation of what occurred, and what evidence do you use to reach your conclusion? 6. Do you believe that this[1] highly redacted senate report is evidence? That is, do you put believe that anything can be inferred from the fact that US intelligence services believe that this attack was undertaken by Russia, and have presented that conclusion (and, presumably, some evidence supporting this conclusion) to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Related does it hold any value to you that no one on the SIC has denied that this hack was Russian-originated (and in fact a number of Repulbican members have agreed that he hack was done by Russian state actors)? Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions, you must have some belief that is most likely, even if none is held with much confidence, please provide that belief. > An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof. My claim is that based on the evidence we have, the most likely explanation is that the attack was undertaken by Russia. What about this is "extraordinary"? If you mean the broader claim, "Russia did a successful cyberattack against the US", I again don't see what is extraordinary about that claim. > A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations. I'm confused, I'm not making any claim about the any president. I'm making claims about a cyberattack. I'm unclear what about "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" is a dangerous claim. I'd make the same claim, in general, about the US. I'm quite confident that the US undertakes cyber-espionage against Russia too. I just don't have any particular examples at hand, but if you cited one, I wouldn't consider it "dangerous". > The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known. I'm confused, I'm referencing an[0] indictment by Robert Muller against the named GRU agents accused of carrying out the attack in question. There's no journalists involved at all. [0]: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download [1]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...