3 ms·

The guy you're replying to took the data as he saw it, formed a hypothesis that matched the data, and the hypothesis makes a prediction which can be validated.

The guy you're replying to took the data as he saw it, formed a hypothesis that matched the data, and the hypothesis makes a prediction which can be validated. Is it an unlikely/weak hypothesis? Sure. But you're asking him to just throw away thought/science, to not try to explain the world.

acdha 3y ago
What data did he take? Be precise and especial give attention to the leaps from “SBF is being prosecuted” to “SBF is being setup for assassination”. The only facts are what we already knew: he’s being prosecuted and that after repeatedly violating the terms of a legal agreement he’s getting the consequences he agreed to. That leaves the most likely explanation that the most anodyne explanation is true: an entitled rich man called the judge’s bluff and is learning that federal judges don’t appreciate that. Everything else is a flight of fancy with no support other than people steeped in right-wing propaganda would really like them to be true. There’s no reason to believe he knows anything damaging to the DNC, that such hypothetical evidence could only come out from his testimony, that it would be worth murder to keep quiet, or that it would be easiest to kill him in prison. Someone dying in government custody would draw a lot of attention – he’s going to Club Fed with other white collar criminals, not the problem wing at a super max facility, and other embezzlers tend not to shank people since they do expect to get out early for good behavior. If you were a screenwriter, the movie version would have our hypothetical government conspiracy keeping him out of jail so he could more easily be assassinated at home with evidence planted to make it look like someone who lost their fortune with FTX because his parent’s house is a much softer target and there are thousands of people with that motive and none of them are feds. Once you’re just making things up you can easily come up with a chain of make-believe supporting any side imaginable.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
you're describing what all conspiracy theorists claim to do if the unvalidated, hole-filled hypothesis (which DOESN'T, in fact, match the data) can indeed be validated, then validate it and report the process and results of validation short of that, the unvalidated, hole-filled hypothesis which doesn't match the data, seems unlikely, given the millions of donations to republicans

acdha 3y ago

What data did he take? Be precise and especial give attention to the leaps from “SBF is being prosecuted” to “SBF is being setup for assassination”. The only facts are what we already knew: he’s being prosecuted and that after repeatedly violating the terms of a legal agreement he’s getting the consequences he agreed to. That leaves the most likely explanation that the most anodyne explanation is true: an entitled rich man called the judge’s bluff and is learning that federal judges don’t appreciate that. Everything else is a flight of fancy with no support other than people steeped in right-wing propaganda would really like them to be true. There’s no reason to believe he knows anything damaging to the DNC, that such hypothetical evidence could only come out from his testimony, that it would be worth murder to keep quiet, or that it would be easiest to kill him in prison. Someone dying in government custody would draw a lot of attention – he’s going to Club Fed with other white collar criminals, not the problem wing at a super max facility, and other embezzlers tend not to shank people since they do expect to get out early for good behavior. If you were a screenwriter, the movie version would have our hypothetical government conspiracy keeping him out of jail so he could more easily be assassinated at home with evidence planted to make it look like someone who lost their fortune with FTX because his parent’s house is a much softer target and there are thousands of people with that motive and none of them are feds. Once you’re just making things up you can easily come up with a chain of make-believe supporting any side imaginable.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

you're describing what all conspiracy theorists claim to do if the unvalidated, hole-filled hypothesis (which DOESN'T, in fact, match the data) can indeed be validated, then validate it and report the process and results of validation short of that, the unvalidated, hole-filled hypothesis which doesn't match the data, seems unlikely, given the millions of donations to republicans