No. Attributing a motive is a matter of interpretation: fitting their act with previous acts, and telling a plausible story about it. This is why people may be confused or mistaken about their own motives.Originally Posted by JayUtah
Incredibly patronising. Scientists easily understand it, philosophers don't, therefore what scientists think they understand must be true?Originally Posted by JayUtah
I have no trouble conceding that absolute truths exist; just not in this case.
Scientists like you find it hard to concede that in certain areas no absolute truths exist, and discussion will have to be on normative territory.
I have no memory of conceding that. I may have not taken you up on it any further, since I believe that such intent is not relevant to the meaning of the public statement.Originally Posted by JayUtah
I contacted NIST to give them a chance to clear it up; a further public statement might have made it clear how to interpret the earlier statement.
No. As you may have gathered above, I deny this. A well-worn topic in the philosophy of mind, which is one area well within my expertise.Originally Posted by JayUtah
No, it's not as simple as that. Motives of organizations: a well-worn topic in business ethics. What I deny is that it 'must be a unified motive'. An organisation's act may be deliberate, even as it is the product of a number of individuals each acting with their own motive. And it may be a deliberate act of baiting, if the resulting act is one of baiting, even if that rests upon the motive(s) of one or two individuals.Originally Posted by JayUtah
That, in fact, is to my mind the most plausible line a conspiracist would take here.
So the evidence would then consist of looking at the acts of that individuals (those few individuals), and providing a plausible interpretation fitting those actions. That is a normative discussion. And it would first require identifying the relevant individuals (and their actions) which I have no idea how to do.