3 ms·

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. An established reputation is the difference between those claims.

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. An established reputation is the difference between those claims. You making a claim without evidence is just that. Hersh making a claim without sharing his evidence is something different. That isn’t to say we don’t need evidence, but there’s a better reason to believe him than you, given the context of the situation. > His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on their own hubris. And it’s also full of the opposite. The existence of hubris is not evidence of it. But even then, that claim doesn’t fit, unless you are implying that he made the whole thing up and concluded that it must be what happened. Another conclusion is that he has a source, and simply has not shared it yet. Maybe time will tell.

threeseed 4y ago
> Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.
- brookst 4y ago
  Reputation absolutely is evidence. I think you mean it’s not “proof”. If John Carmack says there is an exciting breakthrough in 3D rendering that will give 8k 120fps ray tracing on commodity hardware, that’s noteworthy, and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. HN would be super boring if only topics that had been conclusively proven could be discussed.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > (...) and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.
    - haswell 4y ago
      It’s still an evidence based stance, but temporarily substitutes one form of evidence for another. The notion of reputation is itself built on evidence, e.g. we observe that someone is generally truthful, so we are later justified in concluding that they might be telling the truth. The concept of the benefit of the doubt still relies on this form of evidence. That doesn’t imply that this is sufficient. Regarding Hersh vs. Joe Blow, there is still a meaningful difference in them getting things wrong. When it’s Joe, you don’t care to begin with, and the revelation of wrongness doesn’t change your opinion of Joe. When it’s someone like Hersh, such a revelation brings reputational harm, and raises more questions about how he became so convinced of this information to begin with.
      - Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        This looks like an Appeal to Authority.
        haswell 4y ago
        If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things. Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
        Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?
        nl 4y ago
        > Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation? No. Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges. Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true? In this case I think Hersh's reputation isn't what it used to be. This century only one of his major claimed stories (the Abu Ghraib prison story - which I don't think he broke anyway?) has turned out to be true, while most (all?) of his other major claims have turned out to be either false or completely unverified after many years.
- haswell 4y ago
  Topics with unknown or unknowable answers are regularly discussed here. Curiosity in the face of uncertainty is pretty much what this place is about. Whether it turns out to be true or false, this article is interesting right now. If it’s true, for obvious reasons. If it’s false, for what it says about Hersh, and a myriad of followup questions that arise.
- subsistence234 4y ago
  good point, we gotta keep discussion of this topic hidden, so people don't get any weird ideas about questioning our blessed three letter agencies or the holy MIC.

threeseed 4y ago

> Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.

brookst 4y ago
Reputation absolutely is evidence. I think you mean it’s not “proof”. If John Carmack says there is an exciting breakthrough in 3D rendering that will give 8k 120fps ray tracing on commodity hardware, that’s noteworthy, and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. HN would be super boring if only topics that had been conclusively proven could be discussed.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > (...) and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.
  - haswell 4y ago
    It’s still an evidence based stance, but temporarily substitutes one form of evidence for another. The notion of reputation is itself built on evidence, e.g. we observe that someone is generally truthful, so we are later justified in concluding that they might be telling the truth. The concept of the benefit of the doubt still relies on this form of evidence. That doesn’t imply that this is sufficient. Regarding Hersh vs. Joe Blow, there is still a meaningful difference in them getting things wrong. When it’s Joe, you don’t care to begin with, and the revelation of wrongness doesn’t change your opinion of Joe. When it’s someone like Hersh, such a revelation brings reputational harm, and raises more questions about how he became so convinced of this information to begin with.
    - Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
      This looks like an Appeal to Authority.
      - haswell 4y ago
        If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things. Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
        Haunted_Cabbage 4y ago
        I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?
        nl 4y ago
        > Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation? No. Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges. Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true? In this case I think Hersh's reputation isn't what it used to be. This century only one of his major claimed stories (the Abu Ghraib prison story - which I don't think he broke anyway?) has turned out to be true, while most (all?) of his other major claims have turned out to be either false or completely unverified after many years.
haswell 4y ago
Topics with unknown or unknowable answers are regularly discussed here. Curiosity in the face of uncertainty is pretty much what this place is about. Whether it turns out to be true or false, this article is interesting right now. If it’s true, for obvious reasons. If it’s false, for what it says about Hersh, and a myriad of followup questions that arise.
subsistence234 4y ago
good point, we gotta keep discussion of this topic hidden, so people don't get any weird ideas about questioning our blessed three letter agencies or the holy MIC.