re: #64 Desert Dog

You see, it’s treating a hypothesis as fact that gets us in to most of these messes in the first place. For example, the notion that the timing of the release of this report was carefully calculated as a counterstrike at the Tea Party protests is a hypothesis. It can explain the evidence. It is, however, fairly extraordinary, and therefore requires fairly extraordinary evidence before it can accepted as fact.

Choosing to state such a hypothesis as a fact simply because you find it likely, or appealing to your view of the parties involved, is an error. It is exactly the same error committed by 9/11 troofers, and by conspiracy theorists around the world, throughout time.

Occam’s Razor wisely suggests that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the most likely to be true. Everybody take a quick shave.