Can I just put a word in for my own defense? I put forth a general rule about hypothesis testing that the null hypothesis should be maintained unless there is a 95% probablity that the nullification is accurate. In other words, you maintain the status quo unless you are quite positive about the results of your hypothesis testing. In this case, the status quo was that the documents were authenitic. Therefore, it is up to those who wish to disprove this to make more than a compelling case, but to make an overwhelming case. The reason? Remember cold fusion? In that experiment there was some evidence that cold fusion was happening. However, it later turned out to be wrong. Evidence can always be found to maintain a theoritical proposition, what you need to turn a proposition into a theory is overwhelming evidence. And lots of it! Because in science we general assume the greater risk is in saying that we have proven a theory when we have not. Scientists are conservative by nature.
You know what, I was there the day the blogosphere changed the news media. That one guy who put in the research--I know that guy. That guy e-mails me saucy videos. The other guy--man, I knew that guy back in the day bro. He links me, man. He's my homie, essay! That's what I feel like. I was there man. I was there.
1
Thanks. I tried to cover it skeptically, but when arguably the best expert in the nation calls you back and says he's almost positive it's fake after a day's analysis ... time to start picking out a spot on your wall for Dan Rather's stuffed head.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 09, 2004 09:22 PM (aQqMH)
Posted by: RS at September 09, 2004 09:37 PM (JQjhA)
3
Rusty, You still get my undying respect for being the "voice in the wilderness" telling everyone to chill out.
Of course, you didn't get 87+ trackbacks and an Instalanche. Sorry to rub it in, just sayin'
Posted by: gordon at September 09, 2004 09:40 PM (dEFhD)
4
Ha. I'm just a bit player in this one, Russ, but thanks for the mention. All credit to Powerline, INDC, LGF, and whoever it was who got the ball rolling on Free Republic.
Posted by: Allah at September 09, 2004 10:11 PM (AaBEz)
5
I also appreciate the mention and the comment you left at my site. I posted the following comment in response to yours:
No reason to eat crow as far as I am concerned. I admire your restraint and desire to have some solid proof. It is also commendable that you set a standard for what that proof would entail and held out until it was met. You do however need to be careful not to ruin the reputation of bloggers as reactionary right wing wackos.
Posted by: infidel cowboy at September 09, 2004 10:34 PM (KPzwZ)
6
I have to throw in my 2 cents here too...
I thought you did an admirable job of maintaining a somewhat cynical eye. That was definitely a brake on the 'lunacy'.
In other words, you were deftly applying the 'brake' while our other bloggers were hitting 'accelerate'. Both have their place...really, I believe that without the 'conscience' of the blogosphere, this wouldn't have gone down the way it had...
...so in essence, your cynicism going into the event helped pace the blogosphere reaction...because they knew their own ass would be fact-checked.
Now, we have a situation where 60-friggin-minutes looks like a bunch of school boys. You can't help but love that.
All props to INDC for REALLY breaking the story. A blogger doing original research...and the NY Times told us it couldn't happen...
(P.S. I...love...ellipses...)
Posted by: CG at September 09, 2004 11:56 PM (713zz)
7
Ya know, just a thought here...(once again with the ellipses) I was just watching Nightline when they said that the memos were 'circulated' by the white house AFTER they were received from CBS.
Anyone else think that maybe the white house circulated these papers
knowing, that they were easily debunked?
I mean, hell, that's what I'd do...
Posted by: CG at September 10, 2004 12:04 AM (713zz)
8
What'dya mean emailing smutty videos? You've got my email address, right?
Posted by: Simon at September 10, 2004 01:06 AM (FUPxT)
9
"I put forth a general rule about hypothesis testing that the null hypothesis should be maintained unless there is a 95% probablity that the nullification is accurate. In other words, you maintain the status quo unless you are quite positive about the results of your hypothesis testing. In this case, the status quo was that the documents were authenitic."
If only CBS applied the same rule to their own reporting. Without proof of the authenticity of the documents, they should never have assumed their authenticity.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea at September 10, 2004 09:36 AM (biGfd)
10
"In this case, the status quo was that the documents were authenitic."
Dr. Shackleford,
This brings up a very interesting question, in my mind. Why on earth should that have been the status quo? Has CBS earned that level of credibility?
As you know, I took a wait and see approach with this story. I think your warning *was* a good one-- it is exactly the type of correcting and cautioning mechanism that helps ensure that the crappy allegations of the blogosphere get filtered out. It just works out that in this case, your warnings were not needed. In other cases, they will be.
When I got home from work the day the story broke, I spent an hour or so looking deeper than I could when I posted my "wait and see" post. After that hour, I was in deep. The 95% probability that they were forged was more than exceeded. There was zero chance, absolute zero, that they were real.
Don't hang your head. You were sounding prudent caution. Just because no car was coming, does not mean that it was wrong to say "look both ways before crossing the street".
Gerry
Posted by: Gerry at September 14, 2004 08:33 AM (rXl7J)
11
At least after this debacle, I disagree that the null hypothesis is that the docs are legit. The onus of proof is on the person who makes a positive assertion. CBS asserted the docs were legit. Previously, we have assumed that if someone in the MSM makes an assertion, they have some evidence. So we have put the onus of proof on their detractors. No more.
The null hypothesis now is that the docs are bogus. The onus is on CBS to prove otherwise (at a 95% confidence level). In this case, it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2004 09:23 AM (KhiuX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
