It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Math Predicts Large-Scale Conspiracies Would Fall Apart (Is Probably LIES Anyway so Whatever)

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Math Predicts Large-Scale Conspiracies Would Fall Apart, Is Probably LIES Anyway so Whatever

First, the snarky headline belongs to the Web page author. 2nd, hope this is the appropriate forum!

This is a research effort by someone trying to understand the very nature of a conspiracy theory, how long it can last or how many can be "in on it," before the likelihood of that conspiracy' cover being blown.


Any big conspiracy becomes extremely likely to be completely blown by someone on the inside giving out the hard facts of the cover-up. To come up with the findings Grimes published in PLOS One, he looked at some real-world models, including the whistleblowing of Edward Snowden on the NSA. Really, he undertook the process with a desire to understand conspiracies instead of immediately write them off, as he explained in an Oxford University news release:

It is common to dismiss conspiracy theories and their proponents out of hand but I wanted to take the opposite approach, to see how these conspiracies might be possible. To do that, I looked at the vital requirement for a viable conspiracy—secrecy.


The research paper is On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs. Abstract:


Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy. Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs; these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be possible.


Interesting reading, though a bit technical.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Let me guess, the more people involve the less likely it can happen
no #

Without reading that (sorry its too late) the more variables you have the more degrees of freedom you need.

From the few modeling classes I got, you can made things up and fit any curve to any phenomena it does not make it right because you would need more degrees of freedom that you can possible have (infinite data points)...

I will read this tomorrow to see how embarrassly wrong and ranty I went

edit on 27-1-2016 by Indigent because: Autocorrect does not help my cause



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

the failure in this study is not everyone knows the whole plan. Compartmentalization restricts people from understanding the full scope of their actions in regards to or even if they are involved in a conspiracy. The main reason you have a snowden is because he is the top of the information ladder and could access everything. Then add in security clearance, and jail for people who sign the confidentiality agreements and the picture gets way easier to see how it could happen without anyone saying anything. Security clearance jobs pay good with good benefits for the family.




On the other hand, keep on sleuthing, you conspiracy experts. Dr. Grimes says it’s incredibly likely you’ll eventually find your very own Snowden to validate just how much more awake you are than the rest of us. … But he’s just, like, part of the scientific establishment or whatever, so how can you trust him without running the numbers yourself? How can you even trust numbers? Did you invent them? Do you know who did?


what was this line about?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Worship of math is THE conspiracy. Humans and their numbers...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

as much as everyone likes to believe science and math is the new god, i have seen every faith fall short including science and math.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
If the official story has holes, anybody can claim something else happened.

The problem is conspiracy theorists are labeled as delusional and crazy.

To question the information we are given is not delusional, nor crazy.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




The problem is conspiracy theorists are labeled as delusional and crazy.

Odd. Neither of those terms appear in the article.


To question the information we are given is not delusional, nor crazy.
What is it to believe something for which there is no evidence?

edit on 1/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Many "crackpot" conspiracies have turned out to be true.

Evidence is subjective in the public arena.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And yet, PRISM, Echelon, Xkeyscore, and so on...

I give this mathematical principle a ten out of ten for the work, and a zero out of ten for practical application. Snowden showed the world that there are conspiracies in government, and if there is one, then the chances are that there are others.

Nothing in the universe is entirely singular.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
While the ability to keep secrets and hence why large conspiracies would fail is true, what if you actually believe the "part" of the conspiracy you were involved with is not a conspiracy. It's not like you would have 1000's of people sitting around laughing maniacally, wrenching their hands.
Most would not even know that they were part of it. They would have been manipulated from high up. And the ones that do know, and don't fear the consequences of letting the secret slip, seem to end up , with their end being up.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And yet, PRISM, Echelon, Xkeyscore, and so on...

I give this mathematical principle a ten out of ten for the work, and a zero out of ten for practical application.

Exactly, many conspiracies have been uncovered by whistle blowers. I would also point out that many whistle blowers are ridiculed and no one believes them, who knows how many times that has happened to people telling the truth. Even when information about a large-scale conspiracy is leaked, people often have a very hard time believing it and they will forget about it rather quickly.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rockintitz




The problem is conspiracy theorists are labeled as delusional and crazy.

Odd. Neither of those terms appear in the article.


To question the information we are given is not delusional, nor crazy.
What is it to believe something for which there is no evidence?

Your question is rhetorical because it begs the question that the belief is crazy because it is not supported by any evidence. Hence, it has no force as an argument. It is just a vacuous judgement/opinion created by a wilful refusal to examine evidence FAIRLY because one is mentally prone always to deny ANYTHING that cannot be fitted neatly within the official, or 'scientific', explanation of events. This proclivity distorts one's powers of analysis, e.g., one filters out facts and evidence that conflict with what one wants to believe in order to reduce the tension caused by cognitive dissonance and denial. At best , such people are intellectually lazy. At worst, they are intellectually dishonest. They will try to persuade everyone that they always defend rationality and the scientific way of thinking, whereas they are interested not in discovering the truth whatever its implications but only in preserving orthodoxy by ever ridiculing those that disagree with it as 'delusional' or 'crazy'. It is not good enough to try to justify this attitude by claiming that conspiracy theorists have no evidence to support their beliefs. They believe that they have plenty of evidence. But the fact that you reject its validity does not give you permission to accuse them of having crazy or delusional beliefs. That's merely an ad hominem argument of the sort resorted to by those that have lost the argument but don't want to admit it. It has no place in a forum that values sound argument as much as sound evidence.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
The only problem is that the only thing required to maintain a conspiracy is reasonable doubt. Is why disinformation is the conspiracy keepers best friend. All those big conspiracy involve big players with lots of power and money. One of thing guaranteed is everyone in power has dirt, and lots of it, all in the hands of their co-conspirators, why? Because it makes discrediting them easy, or at the very least makes reasonable doubt guaranteed.

It's not that hard to maintain a big conspiracy, it really isn't. As long as there's reasonable doubt it can be maintained indefinitely as that reasonable doubt allows it to be argued forever.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




Many "crackpot" conspiracies have turned out to be true.


I'm not sure that's true. While conspiracies have indeed been exposed by good investigative work they did not seem to be on the conspiracy theorists radar until made public. I cannot think of a single popular, widespread conspiracy theory which has turned out to be true. I could be wrong, maybe you can present a couple.

It is though, very typical, to claim that because there are conspiracies, one's pet one must be true.
edit on 1/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
If the official story has holes, anybody can claim something else happened.

The problem is conspiracy theorists are labeled as delusional and crazy.

To question the information we are given is not delusional, nor crazy.


Correct, but inserting your own narrative in lieu of evidence because you doubt the official story is pretty delusional and crazy.

So many conspiracy enthusiasts LOVE saying what you just said, but neglect the fact that conspiracies aren't just questioning the official narrative. They are also inserting an alternate explanation (that almost ALWAYS has less evidence supporting it than the official narrative does).

In other words, it is entirely reasonable to say, "well maybe the government is lying to us about certain things for this particular event..." It is an entirely different matter to instead say, "The government lies to us, therefore this event is a false flag."
edit on 27-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The only one I can think of is the NSA spying conspiracy uncovered by Edward Snowden, but conspiracy theorists also got a lot wrong about that too.
edit on 27-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hadn't considered that because the practice was pretty much a given.
I guess that it actually would qualify though.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well depending on who you talk to, the government committing false flags against its people on the regular is also a given. So no matter how obvious a particular given is, it should still always be proven with actual evidence.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The NSA spying was not exposed initially by Snowden, however, as earlier whistleblowers had also come out - Thomas Tamm being one of those. I think the research paper does reveal some of the intricacies of trying to keep something secret, the more "in the know" the more likely someone will expose it.

But, as others have been pointing out, the research does not attempt to take into consideration the efforts of those "secret-keepers" in quieting or discrediting leakers. Look at how many came out about the NSA spying; Edward Snowden, William Binney, Thomas Andrews Drake, Mark Klein, Russ Tice, Perry Fellwock, it wasn't until Snowden gave up rock-solid proof that anyone, even "conspiracy theorists" believed them.

People in this thread of dismissing this research but it is in fact corroborating many conspiracy theories that have indeed had "leaks" or whistleblowers exposing it. That is all the paper is conveying, that there is a mathematical model that will predict such whistleblowers. It is not attempting to predict what will happen to those whistleblowers, i.e. disinfo, shills, etc.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And yet, PRISM, Echelon, Xkeyscore, and so on...

I give this mathematical principle a ten out of ten for the work, and a zero out of ten for practical application. Snowden showed the world that there are conspiracies in government, and if there is one, then the chances are that there are others.

Nothing in the universe is entirely singular.


I see he mentions vaccines conspiracy, autism and MMR related as being debunked long ago??



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join