The Burden Of Proof Is On The Russiagaters

in #russia6 years ago (edited)

I saw a Twitter thread between two journalists the other day which completely summarized my experience of debating the establishment Russia narrative on online forums lately. Aaron Maté‏, who is in my opinion one of the clearest voices out there on American Russia hysteria, was approached with an argument by a journalist named Jonathan M Katz. Maté‏ engaged the argument by asking for evidence of the claims Katz was making, only to be given the runaround.

I'm going to copy the back-and-forth into the text here for anyone who doesn't feel like scrolling through a Twitter thread, not because I am interested in the petty rehashing of a meaningless Twitter spat, but because it's such a perfect example of what I want to talk about here.

Katz: Are you aware of what Russian agents did during the 2016 presidential election, by chance?

Maté‏: I'm aware of what Mueller has accused Russian agents of -- are we supposed to just reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors & intelligence officials now, or is it ok to wait for the evidence? (as I did in the tweet you're replying to)

Katz: Why are you even asking this question if you’re just going to discard the reams of evidence that have supplied by investigators, spies, and journalists over the last two years?


Maté‏: Why are you avoiding answering the Q I asked? If I can guess, it's cause doing so would mean acknowledging your position requires taking gov't claims on faith. Re: "reams of evidence", I've actually written about it extensively, and disagree that it's convincing.

Katz: Yeah I’m familiar with your work. You’re asking for someone to summarize two years of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from independent analysts, give agencies both American and foreign, and on and on just so you can handwave and draw some vague equivalencies.

Maté‏: No, actually I've asked 2 Qs in this thread, both of which have been avoided: 1) what evidence convinces you that Russia will attack the midterms 2) are we supposed to reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors & intel officials now, or is it ok to wait for the evidence?

Katz: See this is what you do. You pretend like all of the evidence produced by journalists, independent analysts and foreign governments doesn’t exist so you can accuse anyone who doesn’t buy this SF Cohen Putinist bullshit you’re selling of being a deep state shill.

Maté‏: Except I haven't said anything about anyone being a "deep state shill", here or anywhere else. So that's your embellishment. I'm simply asking whether we should accept IC/prosecutor claims on faith. Mueller does lay out a case, that's true, but no evidence yet.

Katz: No. You should not accept a prosecutor’s claims on faith. You should read independent analyses, evidence gathered by journalists and other agencies, and compare all it to what is known on the public record. And you could if you wanted to.

Katz continued to evade and deflect until eventually exiting the conversation. Meanwhile another journalist, The Intercept's Sam Biddle, interjected that the debate was "a big waste of" Katz's time and called Maté‏ an "inverse louise mensch", all for maintaining the posture of skepticism and asking for evidence. Maté‏ invited Katz and Biddle to debate their positions on The Real News, to which Biddle replied, "No thank you, but I have some advice: If everyone has gotten it wrong, you should figure out who really did it! If not Russia, find out who really hacked the DNC, find out who really spearphished American election officials. Even OJ pretended to search for the real killer."

Biddle then, as you would expect, blocked Maté‏ on Twitter.

If you were to spend an entire day debating Russiagate online (and I am in no way suggesting that you should), it is highly unlikely that you would see anything from the proponents of the establishment Russia narrative other than the textbook fallacious debate tactics exhibited by Katz and Biddle in that thread. It had the entire spectrum:

Gish gallop - The tactic of providing a stack of individually weak arguments to create the illusion of one solid argument, illustrated when Katz cited unspecified "reams of evidence" resulting from "two years of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from independent analysts, give agencies both American and foreign." He even claimed he shouldn't have to go through that evidence point-by-point because there's too much of it, which is like a poor man's Gish gallop fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum - The "it's true because so many agree that it is true" argument that Katz attempted to imply in invoking all the "journalists, independent analysts and foreign governments" who assert that Russia interfered in a meaningful way in America's 2016 elections and intends to interfere in the midterms.

Ad hominem - Biddle's "inverse louise mensch". You have no argument, so you insult the other party instead.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof - Biddle's suggestion that Maté‏ needs to prove that someone else other than the Russian government did the things Russia is accused of doing. Biddle is implying that the establishment Russia narrative should be assumed true until somebody has proved it to be false, a tactic known as an appeal to ignorance.

I'd like to talk about this last one a bit, because it underpins the entire CIA/CNN Russia narrative.

As we've discussed previously, in a post-Iraq invasion world the confident-sounding assertions of spies, government officials and media pundits is not sufficient evidence for the public to rationally support claims that are being used to escalate dangerous cold war tensions with a nuclear superpower. The western empire has every motive in the world to lie about the behaviors of a noncompliant government, and has an extensive and well-documented history of doing exactly that. Hard, verifiable, publicly available proof is required. Assertions are not evidence.

But even if there wasn't an extensive and recent history of disastrous US-led escalations premised on lies advanced by spies, government officials and media pundits, the burden of proof would still be on those making the claim, because that's how logic works. Whether you're talking about law, philosophy or debate, the burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. A group of spies, government officials and media pundits saying that something happened in an assertive tone of voice is not the same thing as proof. That side of the Russiagate debate is the side making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them. Until proof is made publicly available, there is no logical reason for the public to accept the CIA/CNN Russia narrative as fact, because the burden of proof has not been met.

This concept is important to understand on the scale of individual debates on the subject during political discourse, and it is important to understand on the grand scale of the entire Russia narrative as well. All the skeptical side of the debate needs to do is stand back and demand that the burden of proof be met, but this often gets distorted in discourse on the subject. The Sam Biddles of the world all too frequently attempt to confuse the situation by asserting that it is the skeptics who must provide an alternative version of events and somehow produce irrefutable proof about the behaviors of highly opaque government agencies. This is fallacious, and it is backwards.

There are many Russiagate skeptics who have been doing copious amounts of research to come up with other theories about what could have happened in 2016, and that's fine. But in a way this can actually make the debate more confused, because instead of leaning back and insisting that the burden of proof be met, you are leaning in and trying to convince everyone of your alternative theory. Russiagaters love this more than anything, because you've shifted the burden of proof for them. Now you're the one making the claims, so they can lean back and come up with reasons to be skeptical of your argument. Empire loyalists like Sam Biddle would like nothing more than to get skeptics like Aaron Maté‏ falling all over themselves trying to prove a negative, but that's not how the burden of proof works, and there's no good reason to play into it.

Until hard, verifiable proof of Russian election interference and/or collusion with the Trump campaign is made publicly available, we are winning this debate as long as we continue pointing out that this proof doesn't exist. All you have to do to beat a Russiagater in a debate is point this out. They'll cite assertions made by the US intelligence community, but assertions are not proof. They'll cite the assertions made in the recent Mueller indictment as proof, but all the indictment contains is more assertions. The only reason Russiagaters confuse assertions for proof is because the mass media treats them as such, but there's no reason to play along with that delusion.

There is no good reason to play along with escalations between nuclear superpowers when their premise consists of nothing but narrative and assertions. It is right to demand that those escalations cease until the public who is affected by them has had a full, informed say. Until the burden of proof has been met, that has not even begun to happen.


The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Sort:  

Here is something I wrote earlier today I think will add a little insight into the angle I approach the dilemma called “life on planet Earth” we all find ourselves in. Thank you again Caitlin

Hi, I am an independent voter who went to my state capital twice as a Republican delegate for Ron Paul. I finally realized that politics is not the answer it is only war by other means. Now my life is taken up by what I see as our only solution. I believe we need to move from a world environment dominated and controlled by individual intelligence to a technologically enabled world dominated by a Collective Intelligence. Think of it as a type of artificial intelligence powered by humanity. My first try at expressing these thoughts was “Viable” a book I put on Amazon and Smashwords. I have it now on Medium and Steemit. My efforts are all really focused on attempting to show that an Information war on the current playing field is to our disadvantage. We simply need to start a new sport and design our own playing field. The crux of it all for me is the belief that there is a thing called human logic. It’s embodiment is with us, humanity. If you stumble upon something like the Stanford encyclopedia of epistemology, like I did, you realize there is a vast power and resource available to us that for all basic purposes lies dormant. Human logic is a thing, it is just misused, abused and butchered day to day by humanity in our constant struggle for power. Humanity is at war with itself. There has never been the opportunity for humanity to advance perhaps even evolve as is presented today. I am getting wordy. I will stop. Please see my blog and thank you for your efforts, very encouraging. One more note. Sincerely, and honestly I believe this “information war” could be over in less than a year, (maybe I’m being a little optimistic). If we could only build it. The real issue is that my experience over the last ten years trying to explain the concept to blank stares and absolutist is that humanity has not been ready. The people you see around you were born into a world of great leaders and the triumphs of individual intelligence. It is what they know and love. It is their ship going down. I believe the time is getting closer now. The advent of blockchain has readily reinforced that viewpoint. If we could only realize the potential of a Collective Intelligence it would be the emptying of the fish tank. All those scary dangerous animals who are constant predators chasing us around would be flopping there on the floor suffocating because there message of lies no longer travels.

It is just a weak anti-Trump argument. The people who believe it have lost all credibility long ago.

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 8

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

US accusing Russia of meddling in the US election. Is this what they mean by "the pot calling the kettle black?" I guess interfering in foreign elections is only unlawful and unacceptable when the US is the intended target.

The whole point of Caitlin's article is that so far there is no proof -- no proof -- that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. election. To respond with "everybody does it" is a tacit assumption that well, Russia may have done it. But the point is, we don't know that they interfered because there is no evidence that they interfered.

Please point to where I stated that "everybody does it". I said US media is accusing Russia and that is enough for them to believe it. If it is true then that would be fair game. Whatever Russia is being accused of is child's play compared to what their counterpart did to them in 1996. For your reading pleasure...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288

This is a good detailed dive on some of my frustrations with this whole thing. I am getting sick of the big journos asking us to just "take their word for it" or "take the cia's word for it".

Tons of counter evidence and things in the past that the cia/fbi and others have lied about/made up/lead us on with.

Caitlin, Great article, very, very great article! Why? Because you are chopping at the root of it all with your analysis of the debate. You use the word fallacious and actually list the types of fallacies! You are supporting human logic over bias. When we create an actual technological environment to explore the issues in a Collective Intelligence it will be game over for the Katz and Biddles of the world. Right now they are playing games with logic and we let them. (because it’s the way it’s always been done) Kudos Caitlin!
Please see my book here on Steemit “Viable” It is my attempt to lay out what could be, will be if only we can make it there.

Katz vs Maté - The irony of citing reams of evidence in the chivalric defense of Hillary's honor is a bit too much.

What is the next sentence that comes out of a Hill Person's mouth after a RWNJ says something like "reams of evidence"?

"There is no proof of any wrongdoing. She did nothing illegal."

I cannot believe my liberal friend's rapid movement into the Deep State fold.

There is, literally, nothing they would not believe if it were said by the CIA or FBI. They are to be trusted at complete face value and are not to be questioned.

Remember that Assange, Manning, and Snowden, Russia-tainted persona's non grata, all exposed Establishment lies and crimes often committed by the intelligence principals of this rolling coup attempt.

Wikileaks has never published an untruth. Snowden exposed 15 years of lies and conspiracy on illegal domestic surveillance done by these assholes.

And yet Katz, David Corn, and my liberal friends completely trust the CIA and FBI and expound upon that trust by throwing around words like:

TRAITOR!

Great summary here. We are turning (sadly) into a world that doesn't care about facts or evidence. This russiagate BS is a perfect example of this, where is the evidence?? Anyone with a brain would ask this as the first thing when it comes to something of this large magnitude especially.

Just like when the Russian ex spy was poisoned by Putin (excuse me while I laugh) in England. Teresa May basically said that we have no other choice to but to believe it was Putin who did this, again with zero evidence.