Conspiracy Theories (1 Viewer)

[Jack]

This is an interesting article about academic research into conspiracy theories.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684

 

[waynepoo]

This is an interesting article about academic research into conspiracy theories.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684

OK then, so it's not a real Chinese plot after all just Maths.....................^&grin

 

[BLReed]

Well, it keeps Mathematicians occupied. Considering most of them are recipients of government grants
they are after a fashion "earning" their keep.

It should be noted that I barely got through high school calculus. Probably the only reason I did was
that Father Quinn was also the head football coach. In the classroom he epitomized teaching, but on the
gridiron he was the devil incarnate.

 

[RPZ]

Well, when you understand that the introduction of the term "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" were both inspired by the American intelligence agency commonly known as the CIA in order to preemptively discredit any attention to certain events during the 1960s what you are looking at is a mere continuation of an old political propaganda trick. Offering a theoretical "mathematical formula" does not change that.

 

[theBaron]

"Well, it's a well-known fact, Sonny Jim..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N7pYLPI5bk

The best of all conspiracy theories.

Michael Medved has a monthly feature on his radio show, call "Conspiracy Day", timed to coincide as closely as possible with the full moon (though it's often off by days, which, to me, seems like a conspiracy). The calls he gets can be very entertaining.

Prost!
Brad

 

[johnnybach]

Well...............I for one think that they are just witholding the formula from us - to stop us finding out the truth about.............well......er.....everything - and the sooner this formula is released to us and I find the battery for my calculator..................or....even my calculator...........I'll be able to prove it!

This is SO typical!!! I think they are deliberately hiding my battery/calculator too!!!! - Disgusted Tunbridge Wells...........aka. jb

 

[BLReed]

Put this in your calculator and smoke it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_hubertus-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

[johnnybach]

Put this in your calculator and smoke it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_hubertus-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Haven't a clue what any of this is about. my calculator crunches numbers.................if only I could find it. I suspect a secret agent from a secret order has possibly broken in whilst I was asleep and stolen it. Do you think the FBI would investigate?^&confuse

P.S - I don't smoke.

 

[BLReed]

Haven't a clue what any of this is about. my calculator crunches numbers.................

I wasn't referring to YOUR calculator specifically. More like A calculator

But maybe this will help you in other endeavors in lieu of electronics.

 

[Jack]

There is an old saying that everyone can have their own opinion but they cannot have their own data. I have used that small piece of wisdom in formal situations when people saw research they disagreed with and started disputing the numbers, the research method and finally, when all else failed, they dispensed with the facts and made it personal. It is nevertheless a valid point.

Looking beyond the mathematics, which I am in no position to defend or dispute, the research passes what I consider to be an undervalued measurement. Does it sound reasonable based on our knowledge of human nature? The central finding is that the more people in possession of a secret, the more likely it is to become public. I believe that while it is possible to discuss the particulars, I do feel that the central argument is sound based on what we all know about human nature. The only safe secret is one held by an individual and even that is not entirely true of everyone. The researcher does not discount conspiracy theories out of hand and in fact uses some that later proved to be true as part of his research. Although the question of whether the moon landing was faked is absurd, it is an interesting point. When you think that 400 000 people (and their families, friends etc) would need to keep that secret - and it would be one of the biggest secrets in history - it is safe to write that one off as 'busted'.

I often think that one of the biggest conspiracies is the actual conspiracy debate. It seems to be used as a wedge to exacerbate people's distrust of their government to the point that people arm themselves (literally and figuratively in terms of an intense suspicion of everything) because of their fear of their own government rather than the more traditional fear of outsiders.

As a semi humorous aside, a few thoughts came to mind while writing this additional post. In contrast to common perception, grants are actually hard to get, even more so in the US. Unless you are the absolute cream of the crop, a one in ten hit rate is pretty solid, even for the smaller grants. The last two grants I won (they are awarded on a competitive basis) took two months of solid planning and eight months of work. You do not generally get paid, the money is expended through the actual grant. You draw your normal wage (and complete your normal duties) while working on the grant. It is tough. I have a grant application in at the moment and I am still dealing with two grants that 'finished' in October 2015. I am fearful of getting the third one far more than I am concerned about missing out. The second observation is about secret keeping. My first teaching job was in a girls school and if any student needed to see me at lunch and I found myself anywhere but at the staff room door or in the middle of the playground, I always made sure she came with two other students. One might keep to a lie, two might keep to a lie, but no way were three sticking to a story. The third idea is for all of you political correctness haters - I have been to a few meetings of late when I thought my hearing was going. People were using the term 'whitestream'. It dawned on me ever so slowly that they had dispensed with mainstream and had invented a new word. Now that is a conspiracy to chew over!

 

[Jack]

There is an old saying that everyone can have their own opinion but they cannot have their own data. I have used that small piece of wisdom in formal situations when people saw research they disagreed with and started disputing the numbers, the research method and finally, when all else failed, they dispensed with the facts and made it personal. It is nevertheless a valid point.

Looking beyond the mathematics, which I am in no position to defend or dispute, the research passes what I consider to be an undervalued measurement. Does it sound reasonable based on our knowledge of human nature? The central finding is that the more people in possession of a secret, the more likely it is to become public. I believe that while it is possible to discuss the particulars, I do feel that the central argument is sound based on what we all know about human nature. The only safe secret is one held by an individual and even that is not entirely true of everyone. The researcher does not discount conspiracy theories out of hand and in fact uses some that later proved to be true as part of his research. Although the question of whether the moon landing was faked is absurd, it is an interesting point. When you think that 400 000 people (and their families, friends etc) would need to keep that secret - and it would be one of the biggest secrets in history - it is safe to write that one off as 'busted'.

I often think that one of the biggest conspiracies is the actual conspiracy debate. It seems to be used as a wedge to exacerbate people's distrust of their government to the point that people arm themselves (literally and figuratively in terms of an intense suspicion of everything) because of their fear of their own government rather than the more traditional fear of outsiders.

As a semi humorous aside, a few thoughts came to mind while writing this additional post. In contrast to common perception, grants are actually hard to get, even more so in the US. Unless you are the absolute cream of the crop, a one in ten hit rate is pretty solid, even for the smaller grants. The last two grants I won (they are awarded on a competitive basis) took two months of solid planning and eight months of work. You do not generally get paid, the money is expended through the actual grant. You draw your normal wage (and complete your normal duties) while working on the grant. It is tough. I have a grant application in at the moment and I am still dealing with two grants that 'finished' in October 2015. I am fearful of getting the third one far more than I am concerned about missing out. The second observation is about secret keeping. My first teaching job was in a girls school and if any student needed to see me at lunch and I found myself anywhere but at the staff room door or in the middle of the playground, I always made sure she came with two other students. One might keep to a lie, two might keep to a lie, but no way were three sticking to a story. The third idea is for all of you political correctness haters - I have been to a few meetings of late when I thought my hearing was going. People were using the term 'whitestream'. It dawned on me ever so slowly that they had dispensed with mainstream and had invented a new word. Now that is a conspiracy to chew over!

Literally while typing this response an email came through informing me that I have made it through to the second round of the grant applications!! Perhaps I am being followed!!

 

[waynepoo]

Literally while typing this response an email came through informing me that I have made it through to the second round of the grant applications!! Perhaps I am being followed!!

Was whoever following you carrying any diorama plans.................:wink2:

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Literally while typing this response an email came through informing me that I have made it through to the second round of the grant applications!! Perhaps I am being followed!!

They aren't following you Jack - they are following the grant money. ^&grin

Terry

 

[johnnybach]

Would love to get a pencil ( or my calculator - which I still can't find!) working on this one Jack - but as ever - the correspondent wot wrote this - only teased us with a few clues.

He first mentions a "well known tool" for calculating the probability of the conspirecy being "true" - ( so presumably there's also a null hypothesis - based on some percentage of statistical probability). He mentions "the Poisson distribution" - which sounds decidedly fishy to me - but okay it's a measure of probability.

He also mentions some of the variables in this "new equation". We have P ( the probabilty), we also have N - the number of people who would have needed to keep the secret - and then T, as the time they would have needed to keep it. I do agree with your hypothesis that the larger the N, and the longer the T - the more likely the conspiracy would be to be exposed - BUT - it's just a hypothesis, as it stands.

You can see my mind leaping ahead already - pencil honed to a perfect point at the ready - thanks to BLR for the tip (no - not the pencil silly!) , in lieu of my calculator - which is still, strangely not to be found ...........BUT............where is the all important equation????????

Drat! - they aren't sharing it!!!!! WHY NOT?????????

I suspect there's a conspiracy afoot - keeping it from us eager researchers! jb

 

[theBaron]

I agree with the premise behind the research, though, that conspiracies tend to unravel because someone eventually talks. That's a point Medved makes to some of the more fanatical callers on Conspiracy Day, too.

I think the bigger the conspiracy, the more likely that someone involved would spill the beans, and therefore, the less likely that the conspiracy theory is true.

I had a hard time suspending disbelief on that very point, when "The X-Files" aired. I enjoyed the series, but I kept thinking, "A conspiracy this broad would eventually leak out."

Prost!
Brad

 

[RPZ]

Brad,

Many of them do eventually leak out. The problem is that the whistle blowers are simply not taken up by the media and the appropriate government agency that should be addressing the subject matter does simply nothing. Thus there is no objective investigation and the issue fades completely out of the focus of any objective attention. The witnesses die off and that is the end of it.

 

[Mirof]

 

[Combat]

Having some experience with the king of all conspiracy theorists (the JFK assassination CTers) I can only say there are some people who are simply psychologically inclined to believe that some nefarious force is behind all important human events. Perhaps that gives them false comfort that important things don't happen just by chance. For example, Oswald got his job at the Texas School Book Depository long before the JFK motorcade route was ever decided. This alone would seemingly preclude the possibility that Oswald was some type of patsy put in place to take the fall for the assassination (i.e. no one could know at the time Oswald started working at the TSBD that the JFK motorcade would pass the building). But rather than giving CTers pause, this coincidence is viewed as actually adding merit to a conspiracy scenario. They simply can't accept that such a coincidence played a major role. Rather, chance or long odds of something occurring is deemed evidence of a guiding hand to those prone to conspiracy beliefs. And that doesn't even get into all the private individuals that would have to be part of the conspiracy to ensure that Oswald applied for and got his job at the TSBD (including presumably Oswald since if he doesn't apply, accept, and come to work on the day of the assassination the whole plot is blown). And to the larger point regarding the difficulty of keeping conspiracies secret the best example is Watergate. A relatively small and simple conspiracy with the powers of a sitting president doing everything he could to cover it up but without success. When measured against more complex and larger alleged conspiracies like the JFK assassination, the moon landing, UFOs etc. you can clearly see how difficult it would be to cover those up for decades. The bottom line though is that there are no facts or evidence that can ever dissuade a true CTer because they find suspect all evidence contrary to their own beliefs for that reason alone while entertaining the most outlandish possibilities that support their own position.

 

[bradleyl30]

Put this in your calculator and smoke it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_hubertus-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Is there something that says a Justice should not belong or associate with a secret society? or is this just an interesting tidbit that conspiracy theorists can grind?

 

[BLReed]

Is there something that says a Justice should not belong or associate with a secret society? or is this just an interesting tidbit that conspiracy theorists can grind?

An interesting tidbit that conspiracy theorists can grind. With green robes to go with it even.