3 ms·

It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is

It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is no evidence that anyone in the entire U.S. civilian or military hierarchy had advance knowledge of the attack. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Lack_of_preparation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on...

kelvin0 13y ago
Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...
- justinpombrio 13y ago
  There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence. So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?
    - justinpombrio 13y ago
      Except for the fact that there are more false statements than true ones...
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Ssshh, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
      - logfromblammo 13y ago
        That appears to be a conjecture worthy of a thesis in philosophy and/or mathematics. And where do statements of indeterminate truthfulness fit in?
logfromblammo 13y ago
Firstly, it is a conspiracy hypothesis. There is no expectation that it conforms with the facts of history. It was presented to illustrate how a timely leak of a secret might have impacted history positively, rather than negatively, as implied in a previous post. Secondly, even if it were remotely true, there would have been significant incentives for any involved parties to alter or hide any evidence. History continues to be written by the victors, and crackpots continue to doubt it.

kelvin0 13y ago

Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...

justinpombrio 13y ago
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence. So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?
  - justinpombrio 13y ago
    Except for the fact that there are more false statements than true ones...
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Ssshh, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      That appears to be a conjecture worthy of a thesis in philosophy and/or mathematics. And where do statements of indeterminate truthfulness fit in?

logfromblammo 13y ago

Firstly, it is a conspiracy hypothesis. There is no expectation that it conforms with the facts of history. It was presented to illustrate how a timely leak of a secret might have impacted history positively, rather than negatively, as implied in a previous post. Secondly, even if it were remotely true, there would have been significant incentives for any involved parties to alter or hide any evidence. History continues to be written by the victors, and crackpots continue to doubt it.