3 ms·
It's an intuition based on a lifetime of watching dumb bureaucrats try to hide stuff and failing. But your logic is symmetric: where are all the successfully h
by ajross 3y ago
It's an intuition based on a lifetime of watching dumb bureaucrats try to hide stuff and failing. But your logic is symmetric: where are all the successfully hidden conspiracies then? Obviously your response will be "we don't know by definition because they're hidden", which sorta makes your point non-falsifiable, doesn't it?
I'll put my money on bureaucrats being dumb over globalist nation state super autocracy every day.
- Etherlord87 3y agoHis point would be non-falsifiable if he claimed to the opposite of your claim. He didn't. What he claims is the logic flaw of yours and argues deductively.
- ajross 3y agoAnd I repeat, that logic is specious because it works both ways. The same unfounded assertion (that there are conspiracies we can't know about) wrecks the math "deductively" in both directions. I don't think it's very much a stretch to believe that pervasive observations of bureaucracies leaking and making mistakes serves as evidence that genuinely true Hidden Conspiracies are vanishingly rare. But you do you.
- CRConrad 3y ago> And I repeat, that logic is specious because it works both ways. The same unfounded assertion (that there are conspiracies we can't know about) wrecks the math "deductively" in both directions. You're still missing the point: GGGP didn't argue in any “direction” at all; all they said was you can't know for sure what you claim. > I don't think it's very much a stretch to believe that pervasive observations of bureaucracies leaking and making mistakes serves as evidence that genuinely true Hidden Conspiracies are vanishingly rare. Sure. But don't then put your “hopefully not a stretch” guess in such cocksure terms. > But you do you. And you, obviously, you.