Yes. I've never seen anyone question the accuracy of the Church Committee's disclosures. People who talk about such things are normally eager to say that the US Congress and the CIA can't be trusted. It's just selective skepticism.
This is a truth universally accepted, no? I mean maybe not by some actual, genuine believers in totalitarianism but surely there aren't many of those? Surely?
You never trust people with power. You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this. You could even found a nation on that and expect continued support of it.
I think trusting in our system of checks and balances is a reliable way to avoid the infinite regress of Pyrrhonian skepticism, but that's increasingly seen as a libcuck opinion.
No. A thousand times no. No damn way.
Don't trust, observe, verify. That is the /whole/ point of it. Like really, all of it. Compromising that system is the first hurdle of any person or group seeking more unchecked power. Don't trust, verify.
Without commenting on mk-ultra or any other specific thing. You assess the source. In so far as possible you assess the motives. You see who gains and loses by the release of the info and so on.
CIA says russia blew up its own pipeline. Gonna have to see some pretty good evidence of that to overcome the obvious necessary scepticism. Leaked cia doc says no russia did not. Already more plausible without knowing /anything/ else about it and I am expressing no view here about that incident or the existence of otherwise of documents. Yep both could be completely false. So you move on to corroborating evidence, multiple sources etc.
Moreover citing "the same people" without sourcing is weak as water. There are as many views as there are people to hold them. Inside the cia they will not be of one mind in their thinking.
>> 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.
No. And I hope the clarification is understood.
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 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.
Pyrrhonian skepticism is generally proposed as the solution to infinite regress, why do you suppose it would it be a cause?
With respect to 'libcuck', I find myself frustrated by the existence of the term because I want submissives to be respected (out of play). I'm sad to hear that your view may have been referred to in such a tasteless way; while I disagree, I do not think your view is unreasonable.