3 ms·

I think this hurts his credibility somewhat. It's a better story to think he joined with no preconceived notions and the evidence turned him. Now it appears he

I think this hurts his credibility somewhat. It's a better story to think he joined with no preconceived notions and the evidence turned him. Now it appears he had a conclusion and went to prove his assumptions to be true.

LoganCale 13y ago
I think it unfortunately makes it easier to be spun to hurt his credibility, but does not necessarily in reality. If, for example, from his previous jobs he knew this was happening, but had to get this particular job as a sysadmin to get the access necessary to actually obtain the documents to prove it, I view that action as honorable.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  I hear you. It just feels like now you're accepting "proof" or not on global warning from a Greenpeace or Oilman lobbyist vs say an independent scientist. But that's the bigger problem here. Snowden is likely an incredibly narcissistic individual - if only because historically these folks are and he's showing similar traits - and it would be ideal to get him divorced from the story vs being such a central pillar.
  - skwirl 13y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if he was partly motivated by the fame of Bradley Manning. I also wouldn't be surprised if more followed in his footsteps.
skwirl 13y ago
Absolutely what I thought. Now the case could be made that he cherry picked his leaks to cause maximum damage while hiding additional context and wildly misinterpreting things that he saw to fit his predrawn conclusions. This could explain why we only saw 4 PRISM slides.
saalweachter 13y ago
Scientific (style) inquiry doesn't require that one have no preconceived notions, only that he be willing to be proven wrong about his preconceived notions. It is unfortunately difficult for outsiders to judge whether Snowden cherry-picked or is accurately representing what he found. But why does this not increase Snowden's credibility? He went undercover to gather evidence of malfeasance. How does that not turn him from a leaker into an investigative journalist getting an inside scoop?
- jusben1369 13y ago
  I like your point on Scientific inquiry. The main difference is that a scientist might have an intellectual rather than emotional predisposition to what the outcome of the data might prove. Those that cross that line end usually lose credibility and end up on the payroll of a like minded think tank/group.
  - ebrenes 13y ago
    I would be surprised if a definite case could be made that scientists are completely unvested in their theories. I think it's a lofty ideal to strive for, but it's often the case we'd like to have our intuitions and theories proved correct. Like the GP post said, the intentions or motivations (emotional or intellectual) are of little concern as long as the scientist changes their views/theories based on experimentation. I could be emotionally invested in what I believe to be a life-saving cure for cancer, and I'll be emotionally pre-disposed to see the medical trials prove that, but that won't mean I'll fix the results to prove that.

LoganCale 13y ago

I think it unfortunately makes it easier to be spun to hurt his credibility, but does not necessarily in reality. If, for example, from his previous jobs he knew this was happening, but had to get this particular job as a sysadmin to get the access necessary to actually obtain the documents to prove it, I view that action as honorable.

jusben1369 13y ago
I hear you. It just feels like now you're accepting "proof" or not on global warning from a Greenpeace or Oilman lobbyist vs say an independent scientist. But that's the bigger problem here. Snowden is likely an incredibly narcissistic individual - if only because historically these folks are and he's showing similar traits - and it would be ideal to get him divorced from the story vs being such a central pillar.
- skwirl 13y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if he was partly motivated by the fame of Bradley Manning. I also wouldn't be surprised if more followed in his footsteps.

skwirl 13y ago

Absolutely what I thought. Now the case could be made that he cherry picked his leaks to cause maximum damage while hiding additional context and wildly misinterpreting things that he saw to fit his predrawn conclusions. This could explain why we only saw 4 PRISM slides.

saalweachter 13y ago

Scientific (style) inquiry doesn't require that one have no preconceived notions, only that he be willing to be proven wrong about his preconceived notions. It is unfortunately difficult for outsiders to judge whether Snowden cherry-picked or is accurately representing what he found. But why does this not increase Snowden's credibility? He went undercover to gather evidence of malfeasance. How does that not turn him from a leaker into an investigative journalist getting an inside scoop?

jusben1369 13y ago
I like your point on Scientific inquiry. The main difference is that a scientist might have an intellectual rather than emotional predisposition to what the outcome of the data might prove. Those that cross that line end usually lose credibility and end up on the payroll of a like minded think tank/group.
- ebrenes 13y ago
  I would be surprised if a definite case could be made that scientists are completely unvested in their theories. I think it's a lofty ideal to strive for, but it's often the case we'd like to have our intuitions and theories proved correct. Like the GP post said, the intentions or motivations (emotional or intellectual) are of little concern as long as the scientist changes their views/theories based on experimentation. I could be emotionally invested in what I believe to be a life-saving cure for cancer, and I'll be emotionally pre-disposed to see the medical trials prove that, but that won't mean I'll fix the results to prove that.