Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

Using Hypothesis to Uncover theTruth

In journalism today there is rule that nothing should be written that is not based directly upon fact. Journalists are warned that if they write something based upon supposition, assumption, or speculation that such material is unacceptable and those that choose to do so can expect their reputations to be tarnished and their work subject to ridicule. The dreaded pronouncement, "This is all conjecture" is used to imply that a story is not directly grounded in factual material. Thus, it is an exercise in fancy and something not to be taken seriously.

In science there are two ways of getting at the truth. The first way is the direct way, gathering facts through research and experiment and reaching the conclusions that necessarily follow. However there is another way for getting at a concealed truth. This is through the back door, using assumptions. Journalism avoids this approach like the plague for some reason even though science uses it all the time. For science it is perfectly acceptable to form a hypothesis based upon the facts and assumptions that surround a problem. When an explanation is found that fits those known and assumed facts it's OK to go with a working hypothesis and see where such thinking is going to lead.

As long as the assumptions are clearly set forth and believed to be true it is acceptable to use them in writing a credible scientific paper. Scientists realize that to get to the truth it is often necessary to use a straw man containing constraint equations to help frame the solution window. Why reporters feel averse to using this powerful tool escapes me.

Assumption: Definition: A fact, believed to be true that has yet to happen, be proven or uncovered. It is not a cynical presumption that makes asses out of you and me."

A fact that is being concealed by a government is fair game for an assumption. Assumptions based upon known facts that surround a problem that is unresolved, can help determine the missing truth. If a government attempts to cover up something and places it under a veil of secrecy then assumptions are necessary to help figure out what is going on.

The problem with assumptions is that reporters often use them when the facts are readily at hand and with a little work and digging they can use the known truth even though it might require some sweat equity. This is why the direct approach, using only verifiable fact, is the preferred mode and almost exclusively used as the basis for journalistic work.

If you read my blog you will note that I use facts where they are available and assumptions where they help ferret out the truth. I begin with the known facts and when these are not enough use assumptions to help frame and narrow the solution window. This forms a hypothesis to see if the assumed facts fit the situation at hand.

Naturally those who have something to cover up, will rile at such an approach and disparage its use. However, if it helps smoke out the truth it is in my view a valid tool for use in investigative journalism. So, based upon the facts that surround the situation of what happened that night at Benghazi I have concluded the following.

Something bad happened that goes well beyond the scope of what the American people are being told. That the situation involves more than the death of four (4) Americans and poor security. That something happened in the Situation Room of the White house when the President could not be contacted and during the period he was "Disengaged," protocols were set in motion, the alert status spiraled upward and the safety of all Americans was placed in jeopardy. The known facts before and afterwards support that such a scenario took place. Indeed the Benghazi cover-up has completely changed the mindset of the current administration regarding leaks. Here to for they used them to further a political agenda. Here is how it works.

The Chief executive makes it clear what the outcome is of something he would like to have happen. There are three ways this gets translated. It can be done at his direction, with a wink of the eye or by overzealous subordinates looking for ways to please the boss. This is the culture that developed prior to Benghazi. Suddenly, in the aftermath of what happened, the leak policy, that was being winked at, got a whole lot more serious when what happened had to be concealed at all costs. So we see all the power of the government suddenly being brought to bear in shutting down the hemorrhage of classified information. When it furthered the interests of the Administration it was OK but now that it threatened the cover-up it was something that had to stop. So what we see next is the seizure of phone records at the AP, (The leak agency of choice) Rosen's phone records being confiscated, Sheryl Atkins computer being hacked, the FBI involvement and the NSA monitoring capability coming to light; all this resulting from the leak prevention effort.

I find it incredible that anyone that knows anything about how the National Command Authority works in time of crisis could over look what would happen if the President dropped off the radar for a period of five or more hours as a national crisis spun up in Libya. "Disengaged." That is a euphemism for AWOL at a time the Country was in bad need of a President.