I personally "like'

[Mark Kohut]

Don't worry, I'm going away. But not before having to say that I see a confusion in opposing facts to primary sources. It is of course actual real primary sources that supply facts. 

Twitter " feeds" are self-crafted. They can contain lots of things, lots of facts or lots of spin or celebrity high-fives. I have learned many facts from mine. One I like to site is that I learned Osama bin Laden was dead before the major media waiting for the President to speak that evening, did.
Curated right, it also brings many links. Links to the same kinds of posts that are posted here.

Just like what you posted below from a web site.   What I think you and so many mean is you don't like my Twitter feed and too much posting of it. Nobody does. Has taught me a lot about people. 

I have now read that sentence three times. Thanks.  Right out of Kant's Critique of Judgment.
Since that directive was intended to refute and improve my judgment, I'll suggest you read Wittgenstein or Austin ( or even Sartre) on facts, "brute facts". 

We all still must apply " estimative language" properly. As they must and do. The most recent tweet of some " facts", if they are verifiable, is that the intelligence agencies have audio and video of Trump that they judge--see estimative language--authentic. Those audio and visual items are facts. They contain real world words and actions that are facts, IF...

They are very much a part of the reality-based community you say you are in. 

I must say, I had to laugh at that last sentence slam. 
Me, I prefer to stay a member of the reality-based community. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:10:26 -0500
> Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> how over just a few days, the fact that Russia hacked
>> into the DNC and did stuff to *try* to influence the US election
>> is now an accepted historical truth, it seems, even on the Plist...
>> Beliefs *can* change when reality bites.
>> Raise your hands if you don't believe that or simply delete.
> 
> Facts are but the Play-things of spin doctors and unnamed intelligence officials.
> 
> I prefer primary sources to Twitter feeds.
> 
> From Annex B of the report 'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution', page 13:
> 
> "Estimative Language
> 
> Estimative language consists of two elements: judgments
> about the likelihood of developments or events occurring
> and levels of confidence in the sources and analytic
> reasoning supporting the judgments. Judgments are not
> intended to imply that we have proof that shows something
> to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
> information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, was
> well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”
> 
> https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
> 
> Read that Rumsfeldian sentence again:
> 
> "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
> that shows something to be a fact."
> 
> Still, many treat the report as proof that Russia hacked the DNC. As was intended by its authors.
> 
> Me, I prefer to stay a member of the reality-based community.
> 
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l