3 ms·

I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for grant

I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable. I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted and will be influenced to take some action based on their belief. I guess that’s okay, but it feels like people ought to come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than an interesting theory, then move on.

miguelazo 4y ago
He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
- berniedurfee 4y ago
  That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial. The most likely theory is still just that, a theory. With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact. I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on critical thinking ought to be mandatory in school. I agree with that more and more. I also think an author with this degree of influence ought to include a disclaimer reminding people to think critically about what is the truth and what could be the truth. A warning before using these words in anger would be the right thing to do.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Critical thinking would make one far more skeptical of a government that has lied repeatedly to its own people about every armed conflict, foreign policy intrigue, etc., rather than doubt a legendary journalist who has repeatedly exposed that government’s lies and has provided enough operational detail to make a very convincing case. I don’th think we should accept anything at face value, but weighing the credibility of the two parties and the evidence provided, it’s pretty easy to determine which story is closest to the truth.
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      I don’t think we should take anything at face value either. Especially when the story is at a level that could create or expand a military conflict. The importance of this story is at Bay of Tonkin or WMD levels. At that level, credibility is not sufficient without sufficient evidence.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        Funny you should cite those two examples, both notorious for being faked by the US government to justify military action. It’s amazing how many times some people can be convinced “this time is different” in one lifetime.
        berniedurfee 4y ago
        I only point them out to say that nobody should be trusted when the stakes are so high. Not the government nor the press. It always ends poorly.
        miguelazo 4y ago
        And yet the default reaction of the "rational" chattering class has been to defer to the government. Over and over, no many how many times they're lied to. Brilliant.
- berniedurfee 4y ago
  Sorry, one more thing. You stated that he’s protecting his source. How do we know he even has a source?
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Because I read the article.
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      That doesn’t mean he has a source though. He could have fabricated the entire story. He could also have a source who fabricated the entire story. Even if he did have a source or sources, the level of detail is astonishing. The source or sources would have needed to be omnipresent across multiple agencies and government offices. That alone seems improbable.

miguelazo 4y ago

He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

berniedurfee 4y ago
That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial. The most likely theory is still just that, a theory. With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact. I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on critical thinking ought to be mandatory in school. I agree with that more and more. I also think an author with this degree of influence ought to include a disclaimer reminding people to think critically about what is the truth and what could be the truth. A warning before using these words in anger would be the right thing to do.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Critical thinking would make one far more skeptical of a government that has lied repeatedly to its own people about every armed conflict, foreign policy intrigue, etc., rather than doubt a legendary journalist who has repeatedly exposed that government’s lies and has provided enough operational detail to make a very convincing case. I don’th think we should accept anything at face value, but weighing the credibility of the two parties and the evidence provided, it’s pretty easy to determine which story is closest to the truth.
  - berniedurfee 4y ago
    I don’t think we should take anything at face value either. Especially when the story is at a level that could create or expand a military conflict. The importance of this story is at Bay of Tonkin or WMD levels. At that level, credibility is not sufficient without sufficient evidence.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      Funny you should cite those two examples, both notorious for being faked by the US government to justify military action. It’s amazing how many times some people can be convinced “this time is different” in one lifetime.
      - berniedurfee 4y ago
        I only point them out to say that nobody should be trusted when the stakes are so high. Not the government nor the press. It always ends poorly.
        miguelazo 4y ago
        And yet the default reaction of the "rational" chattering class has been to defer to the government. Over and over, no many how many times they're lied to. Brilliant.
berniedurfee 4y ago
Sorry, one more thing. You stated that he’s protecting his source. How do we know he even has a source?
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Because I read the article.
  - berniedurfee 4y ago
    That doesn’t mean he has a source though. He could have fabricated the entire story. He could also have a source who fabricated the entire story. Even if he did have a source or sources, the level of detail is astonishing. The source or sources would have needed to be omnipresent across multiple agencies and government offices. That alone seems improbable.