conspiracy theories

[JohnRoberts]

I think this is quite common. All people have some form of expertise but are expected to decide on things well outside their competence. It's a fact of life Take AGW for one. There are very few people  (if any) in the world able to comprehend the all encompassing physics that defines how the climate varies over long periods of time. It does not stop lots of people claiming we need to stop burning fossil fuels.  Equally, few, if any, Brits understand enough about the way the EU operated to be able to decide whether to vote for or against Brexit. Doesn't stop them voting though.

Cheers

Ian

+1  ;D ;D  Not just the complexity of the sundry factors interacting, but about a practical, realistic response.

There are cute aphorisms about people too stupid to know they are stupid, but it is part of our genetic wiring to think we understand stuff even when we don't, to shut up our inner voice from constantly screaming, so we can perceive and respond to more immediate hazards....  Besides Dunning-Kruger effect, I have also known wealthy people who thought they were smarter than they are because of their wealth (while there may be some weak correlation).

JR

 

[living sounds]

The only thing that stops any of us from being stupid is the scientific method. Most people still don't understand that, and in today's unregulated media environment and the influence of big pocket special interests keeps many of them from at least getting presented its findings (aka the facts).

Obviously our default way of thinking is inductive, not deductive, but it is possible to train yourself to think more rationally. It's when people's current world view gets threatened by facts that they start to work against them. But the next generation tends to embrace these facts, and overall the system works toward a less warped view. At least that's what I hope...

 

[living sounds]

I agree and like to always keep an open mind to whatever is presented. Wheat bread is good for you, vaccines cause autism.... and countless other things in my short life have been flipped around, changed, re-thought etc.....

Things tend to be more complicated than initially thought. But "vaccines cause autism" has never been science. We need to do a better job at communicating science.

As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.

 

[AusTex64]

I think basic human nature and ego precludes conspiracies truly working. The thing is "someone always wants to be the man", the one who spills the beans and gets the attention and credit. Look at it on a smaller scale like affairs with powerful people. Someone always squeals.

And there's the other side of it, the other ego argument "I know what's really going on, the truth, and you don't". So I more cool.

 

[ruffrecords]

That is a good example but you have it reversed. People with expertise outside thermodynamics / climate science feel capable of believing that GHG driven climate change is a conspiracy. Even though a majority of the  experts disagree with the conspiracy theory. (both experts in climate science and those with a background sufficient to understand the 'all encompassing physics'). My background and field of work is energy systems and simulation and I had a lot of course work in grad school on thermodynamics, etc... and the evidence that GHGs provide a forcing effect on climate is conclusive, IMO. Additionally I personally see a consensus opinion among experts on this.

Excellent. Please point me to this conclusive evidence. I do hope it includes due consideration of ALL the factors that influence climate and uses language a bit more scientific than ' a forcing effect on climate'.

Cheers

Ian

 

[dmp]

But "vaccines cause autism" has never been science. We need to do a better job at communicating science.
As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.

+1
a hypothesis is part of the scientific method but there are a lot of wing-nut conspiracy theories that have zero science behind them.
Observing a correlation is not science.  "correlation does not imply causation"

An alternative way to think is to consciously take a Bayesian approach. Take your prior beliefs, learn new facts, and reconsider your beliefs. Instead of approaching discussions with the mindset to tell/convince others of what you think, approach discussions to learn new things. Even change your mind. Our society does not value changing your mind nearly enough.
Thomas Bayes was a normal guy that developed a influential method for statistics of conditional probabilities.

One of the more important conspiracy theories that was proven true in recent years was government surveillance with major leaks (Snowden, etc)

 

[dmp]

Excellent. Please point me to this conclusive evidence. I do hope it includes due consideration of ALL the factors that influence climate and uses language a bit more scientific than ' a forcing effect on climate'.

Cheers

Ian

You can start here - good info - try to get the big picture and don't get lost in the weeds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Also, again I recommend Factfulness, by Hans Rosling, I think there is a chapter on CO2 / climate change.

If you read all that and digest it you'll be a lot closer to making a reasonable judgment on a complex scientific issue.  But you will never find conclusive evidence about something like this because there is no 'alternative earth' to use as a control group for the past century (and future). The atmosphere / climate is a complex chaotic system.

If you look at what humans are doing in a geologic timeframe, we are turning a huge amount of stored carbon into CO2 in the blink of an eye. It's nuts.  There is a lot of reason for hope, however, particularly because of the increasing rate of progress of technology.

As far as critical thinking goes, if you approach discussions with the goal of stating your view and trying to 'win' the argument, you're really not going to grow at all.  Why not approach a discussion as an opportunity to learn?

Some conspiracy theories are proven true with time. More however are just crackpot theories. But the distinguishing characteristic of a conspiracy theory is it goes against the preponderance of authority opinion (gov, science, etc).

 

[Matador]

As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.

Just one nit here: there are some aspects of science, mainly 'Bayesian system sciences' that don't operate under a 'falsifiable' criterion, and fall more under a 'preponderance of evidence' criterion.  Climate science is one of these areas, whose underlying systems are interdependent enough and of sufficient complexity that is is enormously difficult to distill down to discrete levers that can be pulled.  These tenants are covered very well by the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

The classic climate argument that comes up is a hypothetical scenario where if we can identify some time period where greenhouse gases were rising yet global average temperature is falling, then GHG as a warming agent is falsified.  However it doesn't work like that, because there are myriad other levers that pull on global temperatures that are also interrelated as well (to quote Duhem-Quine - "it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle").

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of system sciences that most don't grasp.

 

[living sounds]

Just one nit here: there are some aspects of science, mainly 'Bayesian system sciences' that don't operate under a 'falsifiable' criterion, and fall more under a 'preponderance of evidence' criterion.  Climate science is one of these areas, whose underlying systems are interdependent enough and of sufficient complexity that is is enormously difficult to distill down to discrete levers that can be pulled.  These tenants are covered very well by the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

The classic climate argument that comes up is a hypothetical scenario where if we can identify some time period where greenhouse gases were rising yet global average temperature is falling, then GHG as a warming agent is falsified.  However it doesn't work like that, because there are myriad other levers that pull on global temperatures that are also interrelated as well (to quote Duhem-Quine - "it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle").

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of system sciences that most don't grasp.

I agree. But falsification shouldn't be as simple as finding one non-correlate and extrapolating, nay, concluding from that single piece of information that the whole theoretical foundation as well as the giant body of observations is bunk. Doing that, would, again, be wholly unscientific.

But we're dealing with very personal believes of people, that's what makes it so hard to follow the science to its conclusions.

 

[ruffrecords]

As far as critical thinking goes, if you approach discussions with the goal of stating your view and trying to 'win' the argument, you're really not going to grow at all.  Why not approach a discussion as an opportunity to learn?

Why do you think I asked you to point me to the evidence?

Cheers

Ian

 

[user 37518]

I believe that conspiracy theories are based on some truth, one needs to look at people like Asange or Snowden, to know that things are not as transparent as some believe, and that some conspiracy theories are in fact real.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I believe that conspiracy theories are based on some truth, one needs to look at people like Asange or Snowden, to know that things are not as transparent as some believe, and that some conspiracy theories are in fact real.

Because one or more conspiracy theories may be based on some kernel of truth, does not mean all are, including the often hyperbolic "if-then" extrapolations.

Back in the 80s when I was still writing my "Audio Mythology" magazine column, I often drilled down and found some underlying truth surrounded by unfounded popular conclusions. (Some of those decades old myths are still circulating today.)

It is human nature to embrace simple answers to complex problems. Sometimes it is that simple, more often it isn't.

JR

 

[dmp]

Why is this considered alternative?

AFAIK this is the norm and the  opposite more like sociopathy.... or whatever the  disorder is called that comes from not thinking this way

I meant an alternative to intuition based decision making or an unexamined decision making process.

If you read behavior psychology (like Misbehaving by Richard Thaler) there are all sorts of examples where people make demonstrably wrong decisions based on how the question is asked. Or people answer the same question in opposite ways depending on the phrasing.

 

[cyrano]

That's what sales people get trained for...

 

[JohnRoberts]

That's what sales people get trained for...

Don't forget politicians.  Political campaigns have always tried to influence voters, but it was only recent election cycles (since 2012) that they got more scientific about testing scripts and refining them down to a few successful ones. 

Basically tweaking the sales pitch to resonate with voters existing belief systems.  This is the value of social media for political campaigns so they can categorize us into our specific "belief" sub segments by tracking our web activity, and then pitch us effectively for those identified beliefs.

Human decision making is not completely rational or linear, so this can work. If this is used by both sides it could come down to what most people believe.  So grab them young and get them believing the right stuff.  :

JR

 

[dmp]

That's what sales people get trained for...

I've never met a 'trained' salesperson. In my experience it is one of the few job abilities that is natural born.

But advertising & marketing yes. Social media sites have been able to run experiments to increase user interaction (i.e. make more addictive)
Facebook / Google would run hundreds or thousands of experiments a day with different groups of users to identify ways to get them to stay longer on the platform, click more ads, etc...
They've optimized their platforms to take advantage of behavioral psychology.

Don't forget politicians.

and Politics has been manipulating people going back a long time. The GW Bush campaign did robo calls to likely Democratic voters with an annoying message pretending to be from the Democratic candidate, repeatedly calling back during dinner time. Meant to reduce the turnout of the Dem voters.
Or the swift boat veterans for truth. One of the most widespread, totally false, and effective political attacks in history.
The recent election cycle just switched the platform - fake calls became fake memes on facebook. The conspiracy theories just from the last election cycle could fill this thread. Pizzagate, health problems, etc...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I've never met a 'trained' salesperson. In my experience it is one of the few job abilities that is natural born.

But advertising & marketing yes. Social media sites have been able to run experiments to increase user interaction (i.e. make more addictive)
Facebook / Google would run hundreds or thousands of experiments a day with different groups of users to identify ways to get them to stay longer on the platform, click more ads, etc...
They've optimized their platforms to take advantage of behavioral psychology.
and Politics has been manipulating people going back a long time. The GW Bush campaign did robo calls to likely Democratic voters with an annoying message pretending to be from the Democratic candidate, repeatedly calling back during dinner time. Meant to reduce the turnout of the Dem voters.
Or the swift boat veterans for truth. One of the most widespread, totally false, and effective political attacks in history.
The recent election cycle just switched the platform - fake calls became fake memes on facebook. The conspiracy theories just from the last election cycle could fill this thread. Pizzagate, health problems, etc...

That didn't take long... I didn't mention which campaign used the psy-op campaigning to avoid the chronic us-them divisiveness. I prefer to talk about politics, not talk politics. One is an intellectual pursuit the other is just .......?
===
There is a lot of actual science behind effective sales techniques, while I have worked with a few of those "naturals" you allude to.  : Successful salespeople often get peter principled up into jobs they can't handle. I had to follow one new sales manager around an AES show trying to undo the damage he caused shotgunning out buzzwords with zero understanding of what the words meant.  He'd listen to me pitch a new product then try to incorporate what I said into his spiel. It would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.  People at AES shows generally know what the words mean, so he undermined what little credibility he started out with wearing a Peavey badge. 

JR

PS: I used that Peavey badge to good effect at one trade show by walking around on the last day with a pair of drum sticks and asking dumb questions to get booth people who didn't recognize me to share stuff.  Some people still think I ask dumb questions.  8)

 

[Tubetec]

Ive always had to withstand the'get your foil helmet on' comments over mobile phone tracking , of course as the technology has matured ,and post Snowden , a whole load of conspiracy theories are hardening to fact right in front of our eyes , Look at the Huawei situation , whats the US pissed off about ? that the Chinese might gain an edge on metadata or even an offensive capabillity within the infrastructure itself ,who knows . 

Like anything thats become a multibillion dollar concern ,traction is gained ,intertia sometimes keeps bad ideas going far too long .
Take for instance the likes of Monsanto and their brand of seed/genetic witchcraft , is it not concievable to think that they could be very interested in a collapse in biodiversity , yet their fields of experimental corn ,with experimental fertiliser is allowed here , some would say ,well theres no evidence it does any harm , but your trying to prove something against a powerful industry instead of taking a more careful approach in the first place .

'Vaccines are safe' ,  there reasonably safe because they were tested , in the the case of here in Ireland on unwitting  mothers and babies , is it also conspiracy that the current government has put witness testimoney of what happened in the mother and baby homes away from public eyes for 100 years , we think we have the full facts on vaccines ,think again . Lets take the case of side effects from medication , if a patient reports something and a doctor isnt scienticifcally trained to collect data , or theres some financial incentive for the medical person involved to be pals with the pharma ,I cant see how you could possibly get any credible feedback on your product .

Look at how diesel was marketed and initially incentivised by the EU before the VW emissions scandal was uncovered , here in Ireland a huge proportion switched to diesel in the last 15 years , diesel prices at the pumps went up accordingly ,the reality in cities is everyone is left with shitty air quality as a result of burning a much less refined product in their engines , that impacts directly on the health , an incentivised car industry now has gleaming forecourts and showrooms , ,but you'll be waiting on a trolley in a hallway if you go to the hospital .



Todays bright new idea ,turns into tomorrows apocolypse ,

 

[dmp]

Ive always had to withstand the'get your foil helmet on' comments over mobile phone tracking , of course as the technology has matured ,and post Snowden , a whole load of conspiracy theories are hardening to fact right in front of our eyes , Look at the Huawei situation , whats the US pissed off about ? that the Chinese might gain an edge on metadata or even an offensive capabillity within the infrastructure itself ,who knows . 

The dna tracking and facial recognition tracking is coming or already here. The police have used DNA databases to catch criminals by reconstructing a family tree and narrowing a list of suspects. Privacy laws need to catch up to the technology.

Take for instance the likes of Monsanto and their brand of seed/genetic witchcraft , is it not concievable to think that they could be very interested in a collapse in biodiversity , yet their fields of experimental corn ,with experimental fertiliser is allowed here , some would say ,well theres no evidence it does any harm , but your trying to prove something against a powerful industry instead of taking a more careful approach in the first place .

The individual players are not trying to destroy the environment, but when competition is such that they optimize for $ profit only, the environment will get destroyed. People don't seem to get this.  The technology of seed/genetic warfare combined with Roundup type chemicals is a potential disaster. It has dramatically increased the yield/acre however which is good thing.
More prudence is needed in safeguarding the planet however and preventing profit driven corporations from gambling our future.

'Vaccines are safe' ,  there reasonably safe because they were tested , in the the case of here in Ireland on unwitting  mothers and babies , is it also conspiracy that the current government has put witness testimoney of what happened in the mother and baby homes away from public eyes for 100 years , we think we have the full facts on vaccines ,think again . Lets take the case of side effects from medication , if a patient reports something and a doctor isnt scienticifcally trained to collect data , or theres some financial incentive for the medical person involved to be pals with the pharma ,I cant see how you could possibly get any credible feedback on your product .

This is an interesting facet of human judgment. Say a disease kills 50 out of 1000 people and the vaccine has a serious side effect for 2 out of 1000 people. Is the vaccine 'safe'? An scientist would say the vaccine is a positive (and the reduction of smallpox, polio, measels, etc is a testiment to this) yet people will focus on the 2 out of a thousand and scream the vaccine is unsafe.

Look at how diesel was marketed and initially incentivised by the EU before the VW emissions scandal was uncovered , here in Ireland a huge proportion switched to diesel in the last 15 years , diesel prices at the pumps went up accordingly ,the reality in cities is everyone is left with sh*tty air quality as a result of burning a much less refined product in their engines , that impacts directly on the health , an incentivised car industry now has gleaming forecourts and showrooms , ,but you'll be waiting on a trolley in a hallway if you go to the hospital .

Because VW cheated on the emissions regulations does not condemn Diesel engines. Diesel engines have a efficiency gain compared to gasoline which reduces the CO2 footprint, a positive.
But VW deliberately cheated on the emissions test so they could increase the performance of the cars and leave off the SCR to increase profit (aftertreatment device that reduces emissions).  If anything this further condemns unregulated free market Capitalism, not engine technology with strict government emissions regulations.  And the lack of serious punishment for top executives confirms corruption and ensures it will happen again.

The emissions regulations of passenger car engines are very strict and getting stricter in the next decade. They are mandating such clean tailpipe emissions that car engines will actually act as air cleaners in some parts of the world where the air is polluted (china / india).  Furthermore, GHG regulations are going to force lower CO2 from engines, which is an area Diesel's have an advantage as they are more efficient than typical gasoline engines.

 

[rackmonkey]

I'm convinced UTC employed aliens in designing their transformers. It's the only logical explanation for why they were so good and why we're still trying to figure out their secrets so many years later.