3 ms·

Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predeces

by tedks 12y ago

Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred. There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to be totally ironclad. The comment to which you reply is pointing out the very real asymmetry in ability between a citizen and the amalgamated federal government. It is, in fact, unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the much less able party when there is real evidence showing that the NSA->DEA information flow does in fact exist, and could potentially be used in any case. It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes.

tptacek 12y ago
First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith. Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT?
- tedks 12y ago
  > First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". I disagree entirely. Ideas are either falsifiable or not. An idea is not unfalsifiable because the experiment required to test it is expensive beyond some M. Real physicists discuss and publish theories that are impossible to test with current levels of technology, but they would never say such theories are unfalsifiable. >More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Yes, this is true. >Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith. You seem here to convert a probabilistic claim to an absolute claim. The claim was not that all criminal investigations are conducted in bad faith, but that there is a possibility any given investigation is conducted in bad faith. But this is not the focus of my comment, which was to say that it is very reasonable to point out that this possibility exists for all criminal investigations, and that the fact the experiment to test whether the possibility is justified (by observing illegal evidence being used in a specific criminal case) is not in fact unfalsifiable. >Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT? Please see: >>It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes. By "the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes," I was referring to this request: """ Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? """
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I'm a little lost. If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? The request you're referring to isn't mine; it's 'specialp's. It's in response to this comment (in its entirety): My guess is he plead guilty under advisement his case was hopeless. There's a significant likelihood evidence necessary to aide his case is locked away deep inside the FBI. A very a la NSA illegal wiretaps putting people in prison under guise of "confidential informant". Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating!
    - tedks 12y ago
      >If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? I don't care about that. I just thought your assessment of an earlier statement as unfalsifiable was wrong and I responded to it. >Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating! It seems equally falsifiable and falls under my earlier test. Again, falsifiability is a binary condition, not a spectrum. Something either has the potential to be empirically determined, and is falsifiable, or cannot.

by tedks 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith. Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT?

tedks 12y ago
> First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". I disagree entirely. Ideas are either falsifiable or not. An idea is not unfalsifiable because the experiment required to test it is expensive beyond some M. Real physicists discuss and publish theories that are impossible to test with current levels of technology, but they would never say such theories are unfalsifiable. >More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Yes, this is true. >Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith. You seem here to convert a probabilistic claim to an absolute claim. The claim was not that all criminal investigations are conducted in bad faith, but that there is a possibility any given investigation is conducted in bad faith. But this is not the focus of my comment, which was to say that it is very reasonable to point out that this possibility exists for all criminal investigations, and that the fact the experiment to test whether the possibility is justified (by observing illegal evidence being used in a specific criminal case) is not in fact unfalsifiable. >Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT? Please see: >>It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes. By "the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes," I was referring to this request: """ Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? """
- tptacek 12y ago
  I'm a little lost. If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? The request you're referring to isn't mine; it's 'specialp's. It's in response to this comment (in its entirety): My guess is he plead guilty under advisement his case was hopeless. There's a significant likelihood evidence necessary to aide his case is locked away deep inside the FBI. A very a la NSA illegal wiretaps putting people in prison under guise of "confidential informant". Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating!
  - tedks 12y ago
    >If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? I don't care about that. I just thought your assessment of an earlier statement as unfalsifiable was wrong and I responded to it. >Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating! It seems equally falsifiable and falls under my earlier test. Again, falsifiability is a binary condition, not a spectrum. Something either has the potential to be empirically determined, and is falsifiable, or cannot.