alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
The problem with analyzing the SMC is that we have no real idea about what is going on inside the organization or in people's thoughts. What we can argue is failures that are demonstrable in evidence in the public domain. We can show probable bias in specific instances, but we cannot show what is causing that bias, only put forward (more or less well supported) hypotheses. We might be able to show a pattern of bias, but that would take a lot of work.
This kind of emphasis does not rule out serious bias and even conspiracies, but what it does is put emphasis on demonstrating what can be demonstrated, rather than speculating on this that cannot be proven at this point in time.
Bring on the whistleblowers. If something really dodgy is going on at the core, that is how it will be found, unless we get really lucking and key documents come to light.
Now this is entirely different from how much I trust this organization. I have no trust in almost anything from there because I have seen too many problems with prior press releases.
This kind of emphasis does not rule out serious bias and even conspiracies, but what it does is put emphasis on demonstrating what can be demonstrated, rather than speculating on this that cannot be proven at this point in time.
Bring on the whistleblowers. If something really dodgy is going on at the core, that is how it will be found, unless we get really lucking and key documents come to light.
Now this is entirely different from how much I trust this organization. I have no trust in almost anything from there because I have seen too many problems with prior press releases.