> It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something.
Not really. It's about making educated guesses based on history. If some institution (a totally hypothetical one) has consistently worked a certain way based on proof for decades then you can expect it to be more likely for it to continue to do so. So if this institution tends to lie 95% of the time based on the evidence, which is more reasonable?
1. Maintain the stance that they might be lying with a high likelihood
2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet
Not really. It's about making educated guesses based on history. If some institution (a totally hypothetical one) has consistently worked a certain way based on proof for decades then you can expect it to be more likely for it to continue to do so. So if this institution tends to lie 95% of the time based on the evidence, which is more reasonable?
1. Maintain the stance that they might be lying with a high likelihood
2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet