4 ms·
Whatever your feelings regarding the source of such claims, here is where a lot of the pundits got it: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/navy_report.p
by jimmygrapes 5y ago
Whatever your feelings regarding the source of such claims, here is where a lot of the pundits got it: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/navy_report.pdf https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/navy_report.pdf
- wolverine876 5y agoCotton is an aggressive culture warrior. Do we have something non-partisan?
- AdrianB1 5y agoDoes a questionable source of data disqualify the data even if it is verifiable just because one does not like it? I had the same dilemma for myself, I have no good answer yet.
- twofornone 5y agoNo. It's an awfully convenient substitute for an argument, but ultimately just an abused heuristic. There's nothing precluding a "bad" person from conducting good research or giving good advice. If you don't have time to verify/consider something then sure, probably don't get your advice from hitler. But in an argument its a cheap and disingenuous dismissal which doesn't actually bring you any closer to truth/resolution. In this case it's a compendium of interviews from current personnel. Maybe the implication is that the data is fabricated but the only evidence provided is in the form of "the author has opinions I don't like".
- wolverine876 5y agoWho said someone doesn't like it? Bias and a history of inaccuracy makes it less likely to be reliable.
- twofornone 5y agoWas there anything in the report that you wanted to actually contest, or are you going to rely on character assassination as a substitute for an actual argument? Awfully convenient to automatically class anyone with an opinion contrary to your own as "unreliable". An excellent manufactured reason to avoid content produced by anyone from outside of your bubble.