>>> You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this.
>> I think trusting in our system of checks and balances
> No. A thousand times no. No damn way.
Which one is it? I paraphrased you, and you contradicted your own recommendation.
You’re proposing a flawed research methodology which uses an a priori fallacy. If the CIA says A, but an internal memo says B, B is more trustworthy. It’s equally as gullible as believing A, just inverted.
This is a treacherous assumption, especially if it concerns the CIA, which has among its stated missions information and psychological warfare. Propaganda using “accidental” disclosures is normal. By all means, use additional corroboration to update your Bayesian credences, but at that point you’ve advanced beyond the lazy skeptics being discussed.
The difference is between trusting that a system of checks and balances is required and trusting some particular implementation of something calling itself a system, without verifying what is actually happening now. Close your eyes, the system is perfect, I trust the system.
I highly recommend the formal study of history and the analysis of sources in particular for all of us. There is always more to learn.
I mean, I didn't originally want to call out the insane claim that everyone should try to personally verify all truth propositions. I guess you truly are the ultimate skeptic, or you have infinite time to throw away. Fortunately, for all productive people, our institutions are reliable, more often than not!
You didn't want to because nobody made that claim perhaps?
I do it when i want to. So do Dave and Mary. Abby is a professor who takes a professional interest in it as it pertains to X. And so on. It's open, anyone can. Anytime you have a doubt there it is.
In cryptography we never trust secret algos, that's pretty normal. I haven't verified every open one I've used either.
>> I think trusting in our system of checks and balances > No. A thousand times no. No damn way.
Which one is it? I paraphrased you, and you contradicted your own recommendation.
You’re proposing a flawed research methodology which uses an a priori fallacy. If the CIA says A, but an internal memo says B, B is more trustworthy. It’s equally as gullible as believing A, just inverted.
This is a treacherous assumption, especially if it concerns the CIA, which has among its stated missions information and psychological warfare. Propaganda using “accidental” disclosures is normal. By all means, use additional corroboration to update your Bayesian credences, but at that point you’ve advanced beyond the lazy skeptics being discussed.