Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2016, 05:16 AM
Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
Were the moon landings faked?

Do vaccines cause autism?

A new mathematical formula says no!!!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016...s-equation

However............."The grim reality is that there appears to be a cohort so ideologically invested in a belief that their convictions are impervious to the intrusions of reality. In these cases, it is highly unlikely that a simple mathematical demonstration of the untenability of their belief that will change their viewpoint".

Tell us something we don't know!!!Confused

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Silly Deity's post
27-01-2016, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 09:12 AM by Old Man Marsh.)
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
You're talking about a demographic that seems to think that clouds are a UN plot to control humanity. There's no getting through to them unless they want to be gotten through to. Conspiracy theories are a religion in their own right. They're always "right", any evidence to the contrary is always fabricated, and any suggestion that they might just be a little off is absolute proof of all their contentions.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
27-01-2016, 09:54 AM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
Not that I agree with any of these conspiracy theories, but I can't take that article seriously. It really grinds my gears when people try to use Bayesian probabilities to prove a point because most of the time they're little more than a mixture of guesswork, assumptions and personal opinions. Human choices are not pre-determined like the roll of a dice; random chance does not factor into them. Most people aren't aware of the different interpretations in the field of probability theory, so it's extremely misleading to call them "probabilities" in the first place.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
27-01-2016, 10:11 AM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
(27-01-2016 09:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Not that I agree with any of these conspiracy theories, but I can't take that article seriously. It really grinds my gears when people try to use Bayesian probabilities to prove a point because most of the time they're little more than a mixture of guesswork, assumptions and personal opinions. Human choices are not pre-determined like the roll of a dice; random chance does not factor into them. Most people aren't aware of the different interpretations in the field of probability theory, so it's extremely misleading to call them "probabilities" in the first place.

...roll of a die... Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-01-2016, 10:15 AM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
(27-01-2016 10:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-01-2016 09:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Not that I agree with any of these conspiracy theories, but I can't take that article seriously. It really grinds my gears when people try to use Bayesian probabilities to prove a point because most of the time they're little more than a mixture of guesswork, assumptions and personal opinions. Human choices are not pre-determined like the roll of a dice; random chance does not factor into them. Most people aren't aware of the different interpretations in the field of probability theory, so it's extremely misleading to call them "probabilities" in the first place.

...roll of a die... Drinking Beverage
Are you sure about that? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
(27-01-2016 10:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-01-2016 10:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...roll of a die... Drinking Beverage
Are you sure about that? Consider

Yes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-02-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
There is another piece of David Robert Grimes´ "scientific" work, "String Theory - The Physics of String-Bending and Other Electric Guitar Techniques" (2014), starting with another false pretense: "Electric guitar playing is ubiquitous in practically all modern music genres." It occurs to me, that David Robert Grimes´ perception of the concept of conspiracies is the same as his perception of musical variety - either filtering out what he dislikes or maybe just seeing and hearing the 1960s.
The variables of his formula are based on flawed or false assumptions. His approach on conspiracies is naive at best, hardly scratching the surface of information and disinformation in existence. His definition of an exposed conspiracy doesn´t always fit the official accounts, his basic information about allegedly debunked conspiracy theories is incomplete and / or simply false. Also, there seems to be a basic mathematical flaw in the formula. http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listTh...root=88142
There is another big issue with the work of David Robert Grimes: the attempt to establish conspiracy theories as a belief system and to discredit truthseekers as anti-scientific. It´s part of neurolinguistic permutations of many terms and concepts we can observe in today´s society, the shift of meaning of words and ideas.
I don´t call David Robert Grimes an active agent of disinformation. He may be one, but there is also the possibilty, that the work on his formula is simply the attempt of an intelligent man to restore his faith in an obviously corrupt system controlled by obviously malicious liars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
Only the fact that the amount of samples he uses is not nearly enough to be making reliable statistic with.

It is really ridiculous that people take this formula even seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
(27-01-2016 06:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-01-2016 10:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Are you sure about that? Consider

Yes.
You're taking the opinion of a random blogger over the position of one of the most reputable English dictionaries in the world? Could you be any more biased? Facepalm

[Image: LDaxvcQ.png]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: Equation proves major conspiracy theories wrong
(27-02-2016 05:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-01-2016 06:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes.
You're taking the opinion of a random blogger over the position of one of the most reputable English dictionaries in the world? Could you be any more biased? Facepalm

[Image: LDaxvcQ.png]

That "reputable" dictionary is doing what task though? Where is the bias? Depends on what task you tend to you. What is the statement you tend to use the judgement on?

Dictionaries reflect the language as it is used. Contrary to a lot of peoples views, they're not arbiters of just or the rules or what is the "proper" way of langauge. Their job seen by most dictionary editors and wordsmiths of these days(at least in English ones idk across the lands) is to try to reflect how people use words.

People have become incorrect and lax in their verbage over time and dice has become both ways because people distinguishing die & dice is too complex for them. Simplicity wins out. That doesn't make it the so called "proper" manner even if it's accepted in standard tongue to many these days. Like in chas's link it says " we may simply have to accept that the word has changed. But, for now, careful writers still keep dice and die separate." But the historical or grammatical way is still die.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: