Testing for Absurdity, or The Gravy Line [Archive]

View Full Version : Testing for Absurdity, or The Gravy Line

R.Mackey

13th June 2007, 12:00 AM

This idea is an outgrowth of the "Skepticism vs. Cynicism" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84514), in which we attempted to clarify the difference between the two. I first floated this idea in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2684169#post2684169), and it seemed to resonate with some readers. This also follows my previous efforts to treat Conspiracy Theories in the abstract, such as my Inflationary Theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446) and its limiting case (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813).

Introduction

In evaluating alternate theories, and conspiracy theories in particular, one often desires to distinguish whether a theory is plausible, if unlikely, or whether a theory is absurd. This distinction is important to a skeptic, because a skeptic should always respond logically and rationally to a plausible theory, even if it contradicts previous theories and especially if it contradicts poorly supported belief and conjecture. An absurd theory, on the other hand, may and in many cases should be simply dismissed. No amount of logical analysis can salvage an inherently illogical proposition.

Unfortunately, the question of how to identify an absurd theory remains open. The problem of evaluation is in many respects parallel to determining the burden of proof, in the sense that the more plausible theories have a lower burden of proof, or conversely that an argument partially or wholly satisfying its burden of proof is inherently more plausible. This consideration, however, does not give us any actionable formula, since burden of proof is also subjective. While some attempts to quantify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof) burden of proof exist, primarily in the field of trial law, this standard is not directly applicable to philosophy or science.

In the absence of a clear standard, perceptions of bias are inevitable, as effort is spent debunking some theories that are entirely without merit, whereas other competing ideas may be judged and rejected prematurely. We will attempt to rectify this situation through a general process.

Description

Sorting the plausible from the absurd is inherently a subjective process, and no truly abstract quantification is possible. However, we can look to methods of estimation present in the engineering sciences for inspiration. In particular, I will draw upon the process of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment), or PRA.

Risk management through PRA is an attempt to quantify individual risks in a given process, project, or product according to likelihood, potential impact, and possible mitigation. In a PRA exercise, these quantities are often gathered from the strictly subjective opinions of experts, supported with more focused studies or historical statistics where possible and needed, and propagates these quantities in order to arrive at an aggregate risk estimate. This process is similar to ours in that the inputs are inherently subjective, a large number of individual factors affect an overall conclusion, and we desire a quantfied result with enough fidelity to make a decision.

Using this as a guide, we will model a skeptic evaluating a Conspiracy Theory as a simple engineering process, with characteristics of the Theory and the ensuing discussion as contributors or mitigations to overall risk. The risk itself in this case is the risk that a Conspiracy Theory is in fact absurd, leading to an ultimately fruitless discussion with no grounding in reality.

Method

All quantities in the following discussion are subjective. Users of this method may adjust the numerical parameters as they see fit.

Baseline

We begin our approach by assessing the type of argument offered. This is broken into three categories. We assign a numerical score according to the best classification of the argument, hereafter referred to as the plausibility score, as follows:

1. Complete Theory (Score = 1.0): An argument that is complete and self-consistent, allowing examination of a single coherent hypothesis.

2. Partial Theory (Score = 0.5): An argument that is generally complete and self-consistent, but vague in at least one major detail, requiring examination of an entire family of related hypotheses.

3. Anomaly or Artifact (Score = 0.25): An argument that criticizes an existing theory while proposing no competing hypothesis of its own, such that if the argument is accepted, uncertainty actually increases.

The three categories are separated by a factor of 0.5 -- one step from Complete Theory to Partial Theory, and another step from Partial Theory to Anomaly or Artifact. This multiplicative approach and valuation is consistent with the following steps, as we adjust the plausibility score according to specifics of the argument.

Adjustments

We will model adjustments to the plausibility score as either positive or negative, and either major or minor, as follows:

1. Major positives: Attributes or events that significantly improve the quality, plausibility, and verifiability of the argument. Examples include presentation of repeatable and verifiable calculations, predictions that are made and confirmed, and adaptation of the argument to new evidence that strengthens the argument through discussion with non-advocates.

2. Minor positives: Attributes or events that have a secondary or circumstantial improvement on the plausibility of the argument. Examples include peer review or concurrence by relevant independent experts, testable (but so far untested) predictions, and verifiable anecdotes or sub-scale experiments that support the argument.

3. Minor negatives: Attributes or events that circumstantially cast doubt or add uncertainty to the argument. This includes dependence on assumptions that are plausible but unsupported, vagaries in the argument that leave possible alternative explanations, logical fallacies peripheral to the main argument, criticism by relevant independent experts, and verifiable counterexamples that are typical but not definitive.

4. Major negatives: Attributes or events that substantially diminish the argument's credibility. These include dependence on unsupported and exceptional assumptions, logical fallacies in the main argument, and a failure to correct the argument for serious errors found during discussion and analysis.

Each incidence of an adjustment should be noted and classified. One by one, each adjustment has a multiplicative effect on the cumulative plausibility score as follows:

Major postive: Multiply by 2 (i.e. divide by 0.5)
Minor positive: Multiply by 1.25 (i.e. divide by 0.8)
Minor negative: Multiply by 0.8
Major negative: Multiply by 0.5

Following the method above, the higher quality an argument has, the higher its plausibility score will be. The score will change over time, as discussion either reveals or corrects flaws in the argument, and new evidence permits a more accurate assessment. This may cause a previously plausible argument to be revealed as absurd, and in rare cases, an absurd theory may be salvaged. In like fashion, a Partial Theory without flaws has an equivalent score to a Complete Theory with one major flaw, etc.

Decision Threshold

Much as individual project managers have different tolerances for risk, individual posters may have different tolerances for a hopeless argument. The author recommends a threshold value of 0.05, signifying an approximate confidence level of 95%. Any argument with a plausibility score below this value may be said to be "absurd," and unworthy of further contemplation, until it is significantly improved. This process also captures why the argument fails the test, and further provides an estimate as to how much reworking is needed for it to become a useful point of discussion.

This threshold is referred to as the "Gravy Line." In sporting terms, this is reminiscent of the "Mendoza Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_line)," a threshold of futility below which performance can be considered not up to professional standards.

Why the "Gravy Line?" The plausibility threshold resembles a "water mark" in that it attempts to classify a wide range of arguments against a single limit. Gravy, like water, seeks its own level, but unlike water is opaque, and also viscous, with arguments falling below the Line unlikely to ever resurface or to be seen again. Arguments that fail this test can be said to have been debunked by Gravy.

Examples

We close with two brief case studies to illustrate the process.

1. With Pakistani Intelligence serving as a link, the CIA supported the September 11th attacks. (thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2288770))

Given that the premise accepts the other features of the attacks as reported, only adding this important detail, this can be viewed as a complete theory. Its initial plausibility score is 1.0.

From reading the thread, there is only one potential positive adjustment, that being the single unnamed source cited by CNN and others, claiming a $100,000 money transfer. We will choose to accept this as a minor positive adjustment.

There are, however, several negative adjustments:

$100,000 is surely not significant in the eyes of the CIA, thus the unsupported but plausible assumption that there was more trading hands
Revealed through discussion, confusion over the identities of the supposed actors, leading to a vagary in the argument
The entirely credible alternate explanation that certain individuals in the ISI might have had a selfish interest in supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, or even the attacks themselves, without requiring CIA involvement at all
The assumption that the CIA is, in fact, directing the ISI -- this is an unsupported and exceptional assumption
We thus have one minor positive adjustment, and three minor negatives plus one major negative adjustment. The plausibility score is thus equal to 1.0 * (1.25) * (0.8)3 * (0.5) = 0.32

While a low score, this is significantly above the Gravy Line, and therefore this topic is potentially worthy of further discussion. Even though the discussion so far indicates that it is false, this is not an "absurd" theory. This theory breaks no laws of physics, demands no miracles, and is definite enough to support an actual investigation.

2. Analysis of television news footage proves that, instead of jetliners hitting the World Trade Center as was widely reported, the event was hoaxed using digital video editing techniques and special effects. (thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84152))

The theory presented is not complete, because it does not describe how the attacks really were carried out (and leaves no readily apparent candidate), who did this, or why. We must treat this as an Anomaly or Artifact, and assign an initial plausibility score of 0.25.

The evidence presented in support of this theory is disputable on its face, and the theory makes no predictions, testable or otherwise. Methods of calculation are ad hoc and nonstandard, permitting no easy review. There are no positive adjustments. There are, however, several negative adjustments:

The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication exist
The assumption that all major news organizations are complicit in this plot
The repeated refusal to address those who witnessed the impacts, rather than finding out about them through news organizations
Repeated arguments from personal incredulity regarding the phenomenology of the collapses that eventually followed
More negative adjustments accrue as the discussion progresses, but as we can see, the discussion is itself unnecessary. Even if we stop with the four major negative adjustments listed above, the aggregate plausibility score of this argument is 0.25 * (0.5)4 = 0.016, well below the Gravy Line.

This is fitting, as the argument presented above violates the laws of physics, ignores current technological limits, gainsays witnesses, and rankles common sense. Major work is required before anything derived from this theory should be given the floor.

Disclaimers

All effort in this whitepaper was conducted using my own materials on my own time. All opinions are strictly my own. I do not represent any agency, public or private. The method outlined above is only the barest approximation of a true PRA approach. Use at your own risk. The discussion above contains no export-controlled technology or schematics. Enjoy.

beachnut

13th June 2007, 12:19 AM

This sounds like an El Segundo paper.

Mobyseven

13th June 2007, 12:22 AM

Brilliant!

Someone should write up a program to more easily calculate the Gravy Line, and store arguments for future reference and adjustment.

3bodyproblem

13th June 2007, 12:24 AM

R.Mackey

13th June 2007, 12:24 AM

Brainache

13th June 2007, 12:24 AM

Excellent work as usual Mr Mackey.
Is it possible to group theories below the Gravy line into sub-categories?
Just barely below the line might be considered to be part of a group of theories designated "Rodrigan" or "Averyan". While those deeper in the Gravy might be "Bakered" or "Half-Bakered" perhaps...

ref

13th June 2007, 12:31 AM

Nice post Mackey, that was good reading. Most of the truther theories require numerous negative adjustments. I wonder how much is left to debate if all necessary adjustments are made :)

3bodyproblem

13th June 2007, 12:42 AM

For beachnut, aero guy to aero guy, off-topic, it may interest you to know that there is now a winery (http://www.sixsigmaranch.com/about.cfm) called Six Sigma, makers of a particularly crisp if pricey Sauvignon Blanc. The founder is among the developers of the PRA tool by the same name.

Cheers.

And for those of you less inclined to the scientific method, there is a winery (http://www.summerhill.bc.ca/pcaw.aspx) whose founder certainly falls on the other side of the Gravy Line, but makes an exceptional Cipes Brut.

Travis

13th June 2007, 12:42 AM

Awesome. Well reasoned. I'd love to see Truthers try anything like this.

Now we just need to get a database going.

ETA: No, a spreadsheet, Truthers love spreadsheets!

ConspiRaider

13th June 2007, 12:44 AM

Mackey: I think your post itself is absurd, if you don't mind my saying. It's a lot of fancy postulates and formulas and estimates, all held together with stuff one pours over smashed taters. And for all that: It says nothing, and solves zip.

This is a joke, right? Your tongue was firmly buried in your cheek whilst you pounded out this gem?

beachnut

13th June 2007, 12:45 AM

For beachnut, aero guy to aero guy, off-topic, it may interest you to know that there is now a winery (http://www.sixsigmaranch.com/about.cfm) called Six Sigma, makers of a particularly crisp if pricey Sauvignon Blanc. The founder is among the developers of the PRA tool by the same name.

Cheers.
That sounds familiar, thanks.

OK, who saw me pick up my futures and pack the Honda with cases Sunday?

Your scoring method is okay. Why score the 9/11 truthers, you would use it to identify targets worth move investigation. Tools are used with less method, and much more madness.

Mobyseven

13th June 2007, 12:52 AM

ConspiRaider

13th June 2007, 12:57 AM

I think the best way one could describe this is a joke that is funny because one can see the merits of applying it.
I suppose. However, sure as ten dimes buys a buck - I'll never apply it. Something (woman's intuition) tells me neither will James Randi.

I develop software as an engineer. I guess I could come up with a good program model for debunking that would make as much sense.

THAT'S IT!!!111one!! I'll subroutine the twoofer pukes into an endless loop!!!1111eleventy!1111

Gravy

13th June 2007, 01:02 AM

Two boats up!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790466f913da5cee.jpg

Despite coming from an engineer – and one who is known for his "spacey" thinking, no less – I think this system has great promise. It could be an excellent educational tool for truthers and debunkers.

I'll need to test it for a while before it replaces my current method, which is to drop a claim in a mug of beer and if it sinks it's plausible; if it floats it's absurd.

I propose calling this boundary of Bozotude the "Mackey Mark" or the "Demackation."*

*'Cause I sure as hell won't have it named after me!

Gravy

13th June 2007, 01:04 AM

This is a joke, right? Your tongue was firmly buried in your cheek whilst you pounded out this gem?'Fess up: you're just mad that no schematics were included.

AZCat

13th June 2007, 01:05 AM

ref

13th June 2007, 01:12 AM

I propose calling this boundary of Bozotude the "Mackey Mark" or the "Demackation."

That brought to mind Marky Mark :eye-poppi But that "Mackey Mark" would actually have the names of both of you in it.

Absurdoline, anyone? :p

NoZed Avenger

13th June 2007, 01:26 AM

The opening post was like . . . really long.

Is there a version done in comic strip form, since those are the only threads I read any more?

The Doc

13th June 2007, 03:11 AM

I can make a program for calculating this. It'd actually be rather easy, seeing as the maths and options are simple.

Let me know if you think it's a good idea.

Alareth

13th June 2007, 03:17 AM

I can make a program for calculating this. It'd actually be rather easy, seeing as the maths and options are simple.

Let me know if you think it's a good idea.

Do it! Do it!

Then make one for my Palm so I can identify kooks in the field.

ref

13th June 2007, 05:58 AM

The opening post was like . . . really long.

Is there a version done in comic strip form, since those are the only threads I read any more?

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2007/06/13/mackey-line.png

T.A.M.

13th June 2007, 06:46 AM

I'm all for this "Gravy Line", but the bigger question is, what happened to the "Gravy Train"?

TAM;)

Totovader

13th June 2007, 07:14 AM

I would have thought the scientific method would have been good enough.

:)

Anti-sophist

13th June 2007, 07:19 AM

The problem with this metric is it's too difficult to calculate in your head. I shall help! The good news is it can be faithfully described in log space as an additive metric instead of a multiplicative metric! Aren't you excited!?

I propose an alternate metric, A, which is a transformed version of the original metric, M. My metric faithfully represents all the properties of the original but with the added benefit of being incredibly easy to calculate in your head.

I'll save you all the derivation but...

Every initial theory starts off at 0.
A partial theory counts as a major negative.
An 'artifact' counts as an additional major negative.

Major negatives are -1.0
Minor negatives are -0.333 (or -1/3)
Minor positives are +0.333 (or 1/3)
Major positives are +1.0

In this revised system, you add, not multiply (which should be fairly easy to do mentally). And the Mackey Line (M=0.05) corresponds to an A=-4.333... or negative 4 and 1/3.

In case you care, my metric is merely a transform of Mackeys, where M = 2^A, where M is the original metric, and A is the anti-sophist metric! Since mine is an exponent, multiplying Ms is actually adding As. Voila!

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 07:29 AM

Myriad

13th June 2007, 07:37 AM

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th June 2007, 07:44 AM

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Well, it certainly isn't complex enough to have come from Shadowrun.

Hellbound

13th June 2007, 07:45 AM

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You know, this does have a distinct Gurps: Illuminati feel to it, doesn't it?

"What about optometrists? They get you all alone in a dark room, and start flashing pictures and words at you that you can't quite make out..."

AZCat

13th June 2007, 08:08 AM

I'm all for this "Gravy Line", but the bigger question is, what happened to the "Gravy Train"?

TAM;)

The "Gravy Train" travels on the "Gravy Line". We're all riding the "Gravy Train" and trying to throw the less-than-spectacular theories off the train (on the wrong side of the "Gravy Line" tracks).

8den

13th June 2007, 09:00 AM

Well, it certainly isn't complex enough to have come from Shadowrun.

2nd edition right? 1st Edition had a loophole were in you could bring down a small helicopter with a derringer in the right circumstances.

Oh rule8! my nerd is showing!

TjW

13th June 2007, 09:05 AM

Perhaps it should be submitted to the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Although, since the calculations are reproducible, it may not qualify.

Brainster

13th June 2007, 10:33 AM

I like the concept although of course it gets a bit slippery when one tries to decide whether something requires a major negative adjustment and of course you are actually analyzing the claim in order to determine whether it is worth analyzing, which seems a bit circular to me.

However, I do think all debunkers have a mental Gravy Line beyond which they will not bother. For example, Killtown often begs me to try debunking his claim that Val McClatchey's photo was faked. I've never quite felt inclined to bother for the simple reason that it means nothing. You could argue that it amounts to an anomaly or artifact, but scoring it at .25 seems quite a bit generous.

For me the key becomes more "If true, what does this imply?" And in the case of Val's photo, the answer is "not much". Indeed, it does nothing for the "Inside Job" theory. It's just one of those shiny objects that the Deniers seem to collect like packrats. It's much like this ridiculous fascination with the BBC's announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually did.

chipmunk stew

13th June 2007, 11:38 AM

I like it! I think it would be particularly useful for comparative purposes. I'd love to see a plausibilometer graph of Truther arguments.

It does seem to apply particularly well to a discussion, such as keeping score of a theory in a forum thread.

You should cross-post this in the General Skepticism forum and see what they think.

Vincent Vega

13th June 2007, 12:22 PM

Plausibilometer. I like it. Can we make it so that if you input an absurd theory a spring launches a boxing glove into yer kisser?

http://www.bindslet.dk/sten/awards/nerdaward.jpg

NOZ PLANZ HITTED THE PENTIGON PWNED!

http://www.londonmetstudents.com/files/boxing%20glove.jpg

Alareth

13th June 2007, 12:43 PM

2nd edition right? 1st Edition had a loophole were in you could bring down a small helicopter with a derringer in the right circumstances.

Oh rule8! my nerd is showing!

I know a guy that tried to argue that since his char was a dwarf, he would be able to survive a fall off a skyscraper if he aimed his PAC at the ground and started shooting. He thought the recoil would be sufficient to slow his descent.

Did I mention I was once a Tourney GM for Shadowrun at Gencon and serveral of the developers are friends of mine?

Darth Rotor

13th June 2007, 01:50 PM

Why the "Gravy Line?" The plausibility threshold resembles a "water mark" in that it attempts to classify a wide range of arguments against a single limit. Gravy, like water, seeks its own level, but unlike water is opaque, and also viscous, with arguments falling below the Line unlikely to ever resurface or to be seen again. Arguments that fail this test can be said to have been debunked by Gravy.

I suggest that such arguments be called giblets, since those tend to sink below the surface of gravy.

By the way: nominated. :)

DR

SYLVESTER1592

13th June 2007, 02:15 PM

By the way: nominated. :)

DR
Seconded

SYL :)

Swing Dangler

13th June 2007, 02:56 PM

TruthSeeker1234

13th June 2007, 03:07 PM

Mr. Mackey, sir, when you resort to such overt falsehoods, so often, you reveal the weakness of your own position. Below is your "no planes" example, with errors explained.

Examples

2. Analysis of television news footage proves that, instead of jetliners hitting the World Trade Center as was widely reported, the event was hoaxed using digital video editing techniques and special effects. (thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84152))The theory presented is not complete, because it does not describe how the attacks really were carried out (and leaves no readily apparent candidate), who did this, or why. We must treat this as an Anomaly or Artifact, and assign an initial plausibility score of 0.25.

The theory does so describe how this aspect of the attacks were carried out, and does so offer readily apparent candidates. Video of planes was inserted into live pictures of the towers. Towers were hit by either pre-planted explosives, missiles, or directed energy weapons.

The evidence presented in support of this theory is disputable on its face, and the theory makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.

False. The theory does so make predictions. My velocity study predicts that velocity graph lines derived from legitimate videos will smooth out upon stablilization. This is a testable, falsifiable prediction. It also predicts that a known composite video made by the methods I describe will display the opposite effect upon the graph lines, and this too is falsifiable.

The same can be said of other aspects of the entire no-planes argument. We do not believe it possible for such an aircraft to break completely through a steel frame as it is alleged. Though it would cost a lot of money, in theory this too is testable.

Methods of calculation are ad hoc and nonstandard, permitting no easy review. There are no positive adjustments.

My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.

There are, however, several negative adjustments:
The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication existWhat planet have you been living on? Video overlay technology has been operational since the 1960's. This old school approach may have been used. Much more sophisticated overlay technology has been operational since 1998, as mentioned in my paper.

The assumption that all major news organizations are complicit in this plot Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit
is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.

The repeated refusal to address those who witnessed the impacts, rather than finding out about them through news organizations.I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations. Eyewitness statements take a back seat to physical evidence anyway.
Repeated arguments from personal incredulity regarding the phenomenology of the collapses that eventually followedNo government reports even deal with the phenomenology of the "collapses". A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways. In the end, there is no evidence for very much mass at all left in the footprint, so Greening and co. baselessly claim that "it all went in the basement".

More negative adjustments accrue as the discussion progresses, but as we can see, the discussion is itself unnecessary. Even if we stop with the four major negative adjustments listed above, the aggregate plausibility score of this argument is 0.25 * (0.5)4 = 0.016, well below the Gravy Line.Debunked.

This is fitting, as the argument presented above violates the laws of physics, No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

ignores current technological limits, debunked, above

gainsays witnesses, and rankles common sense.

Major work is required before anything derived from this theory should be given the floor.Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

tacodaemon

13th June 2007, 03:10 PM

twinstead

13th June 2007, 03:28 PM

No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

There is a HUGE difference between somebody not qualified to judge those things simply declaring they defy the laws of physics as if that's all it takes, and countless experts in relevant fields understanding just how these things do NOT defy physics.

Just because you are an expert in arguing basically forever with what is actually an untenable position doesn't mean we aren't smart enough to know it when we see it.

Alareth

13th June 2007, 03:30 PM

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

Ace, No Plane Theory is one of the most absurd ideas to ever be postulated by a human being. You assertions are laughable, your methods are preposterous.

You can argue differently until the world ends and it's not going to change. Planes hit the towers, please for the love of the deity of your choice, just get over it and move on with your life.

SYLVESTER1592

13th June 2007, 04:05 PM

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

If the math shows the particular conspiracy theory to be absurd, when in fact the conspiracy theory at the time was actually a conspiracy fact, what does that say about the formula? Is it a junk formula?

Send the whole thing through a case example and see how it plays out.
According to this formula, you can always provide new evidence. However, everytime it fails the claim is moved more and more towards the absurb. When it crosses the p<0.05 the discussion becomes irrelevant. Therefore it is pertinent to provide credible evidence to support the claim. If you can do that, go for it….

Clarification: Show a theory that has been or that we would label as p<0.05, and has a p> or = 0.05 , after you present your additional evidence and therefore needs to be discussed.

SYL :)

ConspiRaider

13th June 2007, 05:06 PM

'Fess up: you're just mad that no schematics were included.
To be quite honest - yes. Everything worthwhile ever done had schematics and their glaring absence here - just incomprehensible. Appallingly so.

For example, most of the software programs I write, I pull directly out of my butt. Should I post a schematic, d'ya think? And would it get past the withering scrutiny of the mods?

By the way, Gravy. Pass the smashed taters, if you please?

NoZed Avenger

13th June 2007, 07:29 PM

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2007/06/13/mackey-line.png

Thanks.

See, now THAT is how the opening post should have been done in the first place.

Mr. Skinny

13th June 2007, 07:38 PM

RMackey,

I'm a System Safety Engineer, so I'm familiar with the probability/severity analysis.

I hadn't thought of it as being applicable to CT theories before, but you've piqued my interest. I'm going to give some thought over the next day or so as to whether or not some other techniques, such a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) might work. If you started an FTA with a top event such as "WTC 1 and 2 collapse", you might be able to eventually figure out how probable a theory was based on how far down in the tree the base (basic/causitive) event would have to occur before a "chain of events" could result in the top event.

I admit that an FTA would be incredibly more complex than what you've proposed, but it might remove some of the subjectivity from the analysis.

This is a very undeveloped idea on my part at the moment. Just wanted to let you know you got me thinking. (prick - I really don't have the time this week *grin*)

beachnut

13th June 2007, 11:17 PM

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.
The no plane theory only works with imaginary numbers.

No plane, funny guy. Eyes that saw planes...

You must seek mental health help soon.

DarkMagician

14th June 2007, 01:59 AM

I have a lot of free time, and nailing Jell-O to a wall got bored.

<snip>
My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.

Of course, with the distance, and the transfers, there's a HUGE MARGIN OF ERROR!

<snip>
Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit
is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.

Sort of like the conclusion that bumblebee's cannot fly. The orgs being complicit is a different claim that needs to be addressed separately of the videos. You don't get to claim it as a conclusion just because it wraps things up in your paranoid worldview.

<snip>
A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways.

Wait, what?

Do you have evidence that most of the mass moved that way, or is this one of your conclusions that let you sleep at night?

<snip>No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics.

You'd think it was the proposition that's wrong at that point.

<snip>
The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

You keep on using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

gumboot

14th June 2007, 02:22 AM

TS1234, as you have been told REPEATEDLY, your analysis is only accurate because you apply ZERO margin of error.

Only a fractional margin of error is required in order to refute your hypothesis.

The methodology you use involves an ENORMOUS margin of error.

-Gumboot

Triterope

14th June 2007, 12:02 PM

Proposal: Credibility Score Baseline

RMackey, I think your algorithm overlooks one very important factor: namely, the credibility of the person raising the argument.

I'm much less likely to believe a theory is absurd if it's been proposed by someone with a history of solidly researching everything they say, as opposed to someone with a long history of cutting-and-pasting everything they see on Prison Planet.

Therefore I suggest that the proponent of the theory start with a baseline "credibility score", based on how many theories they've proposed in the past, and average score of those theories. (The former is important because it gives us more data points; someone who proposed ten bad theories should be demerited more than someone who proposed one and theory.)

I tinkered around in Excel until I found a formula that kinda matched the rate at which I stop listening to people who propose crazy theories. It is:

=SQRT((SQRT(A/0.05))^N)

Where N is the number of theories they have previously proposed, and A is the average score those theories got.

In English:

1. Divide the average credibility score by .05. This converts it to a scale where a minimum acceptable theory is 1, a failed theory is between 0 and 1, and a passing theory is greater than 1.

2. Take the square root of the result of Step 1. This makes the curve less extreme for values that are far from 1 (i.e., very high or very low).

3. Raise the result of Step 2 to the power of N, N being the total number of theories proposed. The more theories proposed, the more extreme the bonus/penalty for one's existing credibility score.

4. Take the square root of the result of Step 3, once again to make the curve less extreme.

5. If the result is greater than 1.5, the credibility baseline is 1.5. Otherwise, the credibility baseline is the result of Step 4.

People who propose passable theories can have a credibility score as high as 1.5. Those who propose failing theories have credibility scores that will approach zero. This has the effect of giving each person their own minimum credibility threshold.

A person with the maximum credibility rating of 1.5 applies a 1.5 multiplier to any theory they propose. This means they can propose a theory that would otherwise earn a score of 0.0333, and have it earn a passing grade (1.5 x 0.03333 = 0.05). This is why credibility rating maxes out at 1.5; if it went higher, someone with such a rating could propose insanely poor scores and have them pass. This requires each theory to meet a bare minimum score, no matter how credible the proponent becomes.

Someone with a credibility rating below one must earn a score higher than 0.05: For example, someone with a credibility rating of 0.4 needs a score of .125 to pass (.125 x .4 = .05).

It is possible for one's credibility score to become so low that no theory they propose can possibly meet the 0.05 minimum score. This is by design; it attempts to model the point at which someone is simply not worth listening to anymore. The lower one's average rating goes, and the more theories they propose, the more one's credibility score approaches zero.

Some sample credibility scores, based on AVG (average credibility rating) and N (number of theories proposed):

AVG=0.049, N=50 -> 0.777. Despite a failing AVG and a lot of theories proposed, this person is close enough to the minimum that we're willing to continue listening to them.

AVG=0.049, N=2 -> 0.990. Since this person has only proposed two theories, they only take a slight credibility hit.

AVG=0.010, N=2 -> 0.447. This person has also proposed two theories, but they were so awful (average score .01) that their credibility is already diminshed by half. If they do not improve this average quickly, they will become non-credible.

AVG=0.05, N=any number -> 1. The algorithm is designed such that someone whose average barely meets the minimum will always have a credibility score of 1 -- no bonus or penalty.

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th June 2007, 01:32 PM

Wouldn't a credibility score introduce greater risk of fallacious appeal to authority and argumentum ad hominem fallacies into the process?

Triterope

14th June 2007, 02:03 PM

Wouldn't a credibility score introduce greater risk of fallacious appeal to authority and argumentum ad hominem fallacies into the process?

Yes. But my algorithm is designed to minimize that risk.

That's why the maximum allowable credibility score is 1.5. It prevents someone from building so much credibility that they can say anything and have it get a passing grade. You could cap it lower than that if you wanted. You could even cap it at 1, which would require all theories to meet the .05 minimum score no matter how is proposing them. However, I prefer to give a little leeway to who have a history of being correct.

As for the other end of the scale, the N factor gives proponents of bad theories a chance correct themselves before we start holding it against them. It does not punish severely until the proponent has made several bad arguments, or makes arguments that consisntely fall well short of the 0.05 passing grade.

I do not believe it is argumentum ad hominem to give short shrift to a theory when the person proposing it has a long history of proposing nonsense. RMackey's original formula views every theory in a vacuum. I don't view them that way, and I don't think anyone should, because we have limited time and resources to evaluate them. When deciding what we're going to spend our valuable time investigating, one's credibility should be a factor.

Credibility score, as I propose above, is only going to affect two cases. First, in cases where the unadjusted score of a theory comes out to be very near 0.05, the proponent's credibility can be the difference between a passing and failing score. Second, some people's credibility will become so low that anything they say is unlikely to be worth investigating.

If you wanted to be really scientific about it, you could track people's Gravy Rating scores, and build models of how much they vary. If a person's average rating is 0.06 after 10 theories, how likely is that person's next theory to earn a score 0.05? How likely is it to be below 0.05? Do people with sub-0.05 scores always make sub-0.05 proposals, or do people with failing averages make good points sometimes? Analysis of this sort would likely give us a better idea of when it is "safe" to reject people out of hand.

If you wanted to, you could give each person a crediblity score without using it as a multiplier for their own theories. This would require each theory to meet the 0.05 minimum regardless of proponent, but would give us a metric we could use to auto-reject people once they've promoted too many failing theories.

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 04:47 PM

Can you suggest an example of something that was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory but later became generally accepted as authoritative?

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

tacodaemon

14th June 2007, 04:55 PM

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That's the closest I can think of offhand too, but frankly there is still controversy over whether LBJ knew the second attack didn't really happen -- in other words, it's not seen as an open-and-shut case yet. See http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ for example.

The goings-on detailed in the Pentagon Papers might work, if there was anyone promoting it as a conspiracy theory ahead of time. Although any kind of conspiracy involving high government officials rather than extragovernmental actors kind of seems like something qualitatively different. How about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 05:52 PM

That's the closest I can think of offhand too, but frankly there is still controversy over whether LBJ knew the second attack didn't really happen -- in other words, it's not seen as an open-and-shut case yet. See http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ for example.

The goings-on detailed in the Pentagon Papers might work, if there was anyone promoting it as a conspiracy theory ahead of time. Although any kind of conspiracy involving high government officials rather than extragovernmental actors kind of seems like something qualitatively different. How about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

Actually it goes a bit further back to OP-PLAN 34A that were covert operations carried out by the U.S. against the North Vietnamese.Around midnight on the night of July 30-31, OPLAN 34A raiders from Danang shelled two of North Vietnam's offshore islands, Hon Me and Hon Ngu (a.k.a. Hon Nieu). The end result was the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the rest is history.

Quick summary: To summarize, the principal objective of OPLAN 34A was to combine the attacks against North Vietnam with military and diplomatic pressure to serve as a warning to North Vietnam to not increase its activities in Laos and in the RVN. Thus, from a plan that was implemented by the CIA with the objective of gathering intelligence and wreaking havoc on the North, OPLAN 34A had now become an operation that was heavily weighted on the political aspects of the confrontation.

Also on December 15, 1963, in response to high level directives, the U.S. Navy set up a Mobile Support Team (Toán Yểm Trợ Lưu Ðộng) in Ðà Nẵng. This team consisted of a number of U.S. Navy frogmen known as SEALS, U.S. Marine Intelligence Officers and many American specialists experienced in guerrilla operations. Additionally, two PT Boat crews had recently arrived in Ðà Nẵng. The purpose of the Mobile Support Teams was to train Vietnamese crews in how to operate the PT Boats and use them in commando raids by sea. The U.S. would provide maintenance and support services.

On December 19th, the U.S. Army Command in the Pacific asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for permission to implement OPLAN 34A on an experimental basis for a period of 12 months.

LBJ in his audio tapes is apparently aware of these Operations. In a Vietnam War class years ago that I took as part of my undergrad training, the course if I remember correctly was one of the first in the nation..but there was a great quote in our text from LBJ, I'm paraphrasing so bear with me:

"I don't give a god dam if they are shooting at flying fish..." I distinctly remember that quote because it was the first time in a text book I came across god dam.

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 05:58 PM

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 06:01 PM

Mr. Mackey, sir, when you resort to such overt falsehoods, so often, you reveal the weakness of your own position. Below is your "no planes" example, with errors explained.

Mackey has never, to the knowledge of any sane person, told any lies on this forum. You, on the other hand, have been caught lying often.

The theory does so describe how this aspect of the attacks were carried out, and does so offer readily apparent candidates. Video of planes was inserted into live pictures of the towers. Towers were hit by either pre-planted explosives, missiles, or directed energy weapons.

False. The theory does so make predictions. My velocity study predicts that velocity graph lines derived from legitimate videos will smooth out upon stablilization. This is a testable, falsifiable prediction. It also predicts that a known composite video made by the methods I describe will display the opposite effect upon the graph lines, and this too is falsifiable.

The same can be said of other aspects of the entire no-planes argument. We do not believe it possible for such an aircraft to break completely through a steel frame as it is alleged. Though it would cost a lot of money, in theory this too is testable.

My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.

What planet have you been living on? Video overlay technology has been operational since the 1960's. This old school approach may have been used. Much more sophisticated overlay technology has been operational since 1998, as mentioned in my paper.

Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit

is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations. Eyewitness statements take a back seat to physical evidence anyway. No government reports even deal with the phenomenology of the "collapses". A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways. In the end, there is no evidence for very much mass at all left in the footprint, so Greening and co. baselessly claim that "it all went in the basement".

Debunked.

No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

debunked, above

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

Your incompetent drivel has been reduced to, you should pardon the expression, pulverized dust. Your deranged notion that no planes hit the Twin Towers is insane and so are you.

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 06:10 PM

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Fascinating example. After a day of skirmishing with North Vietnamese torpedo boats, American sailors reported, in poor visibility, an attack on their destroyer that probably never occurred. Lyndon Johnson commented that, "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably firing at flying fish." That didn't stop him, however, from cynically ramming a "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" through a subservient Congress.

Now, there was absolutely no conspiracy of any sort. Nobody seriously believes that there was. A very tricky pol used an opportunity that had fallen into his lap to advance a policy that was already in place.
So, Swingie, you didn't disappoint your fans: You had absolutely nothing in mind when you suggested that some conspiracy theories have proved to be reality-based.

Swing Dangler

14th June 2007, 06:25 PM

Fascinating example. After a day of skirmishing with North Vietnamese torpedo boats, American sailors reported, in poor visibility, an attack on their destroyer that probably never occurred. Lyndon Johnson commented that, "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably firing at flying fish." That didn't stop him, however, from cynically ramming a "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" through a subservient Congress.

Now, there was absolutely no conspiracy of any sort. Nobody seriously believes that there was. A very tricky pol used an opportunity that had fallen into his lap to advance a policy that was already in place.
So, Swingie, you didn't disappoint your fans: You had absolutely nothing in mind when you suggested that some conspiracy theories have proved to be reality-based.

Please study the events of the OP-Plans for example prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the context of the event before spouting off and displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand with the final goal of attacking my character. Thanks.

bonavada

14th June 2007, 06:29 PM

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations.

why should witnesses contact you? why not contact these people yourself? i'm sure that if i was as convinced as you of your incredible findings i would feel compelled to do so.
HERE (http://911digitalarchive.org/lc/index.html) is a collection of stories, some from 9-11 eyewitnesses (stored at the library of congress no less) seems like an obvious place to start.
please let us know how you get on.

BV

pomeroo

14th June 2007, 06:57 PM

Please study the events of the OP-Plans for example prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the context of the event before spouting off and displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand with the final goal of attacking my character. Thanks.

I have read considerably more on the Vietnam War and the political climate surrounding it than you have. Your own posted material refutes the notion that a "conspiracy" was involved.

Your character invites attack because you are a dogged liar who has no regard for reason or truth.

PhantomWolf

14th June 2007, 07:47 PM

Very nice, but at the moment I'm pursuing a different tack - I'm trying to determine a way to "bound" the stupidity of conspiracy theories. Is there a maximum level of stupidity that even the most stupifying theory cannot exceed? Thoughts on this are appreciated.

Well Einstein once stated that the only two things that were infinite were the Universe and stupidity, and that he wasn't sure about the Universe.

Of course the real question is can stupidity be quantised and if so what should a quantum of stupid be called?

AZCat

14th June 2007, 07:54 PM

Well Einstein once stated that the only two things that were infinite were the Universe and stupidity, and that he wasn't sure about the Universe.

Of course the real question is can stupidity be quantised and if so what should a quantum of stupid be called?

A "Stundie", perhaps? As in, "I've just absorbed three Stundies by reading killtowns inane theories!"

Another question: is there conservation of stupidity? Can I draw a control volume around someone (killtown, for example) and determine the source of his massive emissions of stupid (in the kilo-Stundie, or "kS" range).

PhantomWolf

14th June 2007, 07:57 PM

A "Stundie", perhaps? As in, "I've just absorbed three Stundies by reading killtowns inane theories!"

Another question: is there conservation of stupidity? Can I draw a control volume around someone (killtown, for example) and determine the source of his massive emissions of stupid (in the kilo-Stundie, or "kS" range).

No, I think that Stupid is related to Entropy and actually increases over time. It requires energy and work to combat Stupid and lower its level. This of course does pose the question. If the debunkers shut up shop, would the universe die its heat death or stupid death first?

eta: I also have to wonder how many stundies would be considered a fatal dosage....?

AZCat

14th June 2007, 08:05 PM

No, I think that Stupid is related to Entropy and actually increases over time. It requires energy and work to combat Stupid and lower its level. This of course does pose the question. If the debunkers shut up shop, would the universe die its heat death or stupid death first?

eta: I also have to wonder how many stundies would be considered a fatal dosage....?

Alcohol must play a factor, because I find that I (and numerous other people) radiate increased stundie levels when we're drinking. Perhaps some form of equivalency could be developed, such as:
3 Beam&Cokes is roughly equivalent to one stundie (about the point I start to develop stupid theories about work)
5 Beam&Cokes ~ two stundies (I have moved on to theories about women)
6 Beam&Cokes ~ three stundies (I have theories relating women, work and solar energy)

Notice that the relationship is not linear - I think this means something (but what, I don't know - I"m drinking).

Triterope

14th June 2007, 08:18 PM

SYLVESTER1592

14th June 2007, 08:50 PM

PhantomWolf

14th June 2007, 08:54 PM

TruthSeeker1234

14th June 2007, 10:04 PM

Can you suggest an example of something that was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory but later became generally accepted as authoritative?

Here are two:

The overthrow of Iran by the CIA in the early 1950's. This is now considered historical fact. It certainly would have been very, very relevant information for the U.S. public to have known during the 1979 hostage crises. A generation of Iranians had grown up knowing that their democratically elected president was ousted by U.S. operatives and replaced by the puppet Shah.

The existence of the NSA. For at least two decades the NSA existed despite staunch denials from all official sources. "No Such Agency" was the official line. People who insisted were branded kooks and conspiracy theorists. To this day, though we know of its existence, we have no clue about the number of employees, the funding, or the activities of the NSA.

Kage

14th June 2007, 10:10 PM

Wait a minute. If stupidity and the universe are both infinite, how can one be measurable in terms of the other? How can something be infinite, and also smaller than something else? For stupidity to be a measurable quantity, it must first be non-infinite, which Einstein said it is not. It follows, therefore, that stupidity and the universe are coextensive. Which explains a hell of a lot.

To explain PW and perhaps clarify:

There are two types of infinite, countable and uncountable.

Countably infinite sets are sets such as integers or rational numbers because they can be indexed. Two examples would be integers and multiples of two. The mind bender is that there are the same number of elements in both sets, even though there would seem to be twice as many in the first as in the second.

Uncountably infinite sets are sets like the real line. These are "more infinite" than countably infinite sets. To prove: Assume that the numbers on the real line are countable, i.e. the real line can be described by a set of numbers x(1), x(2) ... now creat a number a such that the first digit of a is different than the first digit of x(1), the second digit of a is different than the second digit of x(2) and so on. a is a real number but has not been indexed, which is a contradiction. Therefore the real line is not countable.

The biggest mind bender ever is that while rational numbers are countable, irrational numbers are not. Yet between every two rational numbers there is an irrational number and between every two irrational numbers there is a rational number.

Best not to think about it.

Triterope

14th June 2007, 10:42 PM

Thanks for the input, Wolf and Kage. Somehow I knew someone here would find an advanced hypermathematical flaw in my little theory. From now on, I'll leave the calculations of infinity to the experts.

Gravy

14th June 2007, 10:49 PM

The existence of the NSA. For at least two decades the NSA existed despite staunch denials from all official sources. "No Such Agency" was the official line. People who insisted were branded kooks and conspiracy theorists. To this day, though we know of its existence, we have no clue about the number of employees, the funding, or the activities of the NSA.You've repeatedly made this claim and it's been repeatedly shown to be false. The existence of the NSA was not a secret. In fact, the NSA was involved in scandals that were front-page news in the '50s and '60s. Stop fantasizing and get help.

TruthSeeker1234

14th June 2007, 11:50 PM

How 'bout the overthrow of Iran, Gravy? Answer that, and give us some links on NSA scandals too. I'd like to learn about that.

orphia nay

15th June 2007, 12:01 AM

Testing to see if TS tries to weasel out of admitting the truth to himself.

The theory does so describe how this aspect of the attacks were carried out, and does so offer readily apparent candidates. Video of planes was inserted into live pictures of the towers. Towers were hit by either pre-planted explosives, [or] missiles, or directed energy weapons.

Do you admit that your theory does not have an answer as to what brought the towers down?

Yes or no?

Gravy

15th June 2007, 12:06 AM

How 'bout the overthrow of Iran, Gravy? Answer that,Answer what? I never claimed the U.S. (and Britain) weren't involved in that coup.

and give us some links on NSA scandals too. I'd like to learn about that.I did that long ago. I suggest starting with a combination of the book The Code Breakers and the archives of The New York Times. The NSA has even had a High School Work-Study program for decades. I had a friend who participated in it in the '70s.

Horatius

15th June 2007, 06:03 AM

I had this idea a few days ago, but I've had troubling logging onto the comic strip site, so here it is now....

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/06/15/the-gravy-line-explained.png

GregoryUrich

15th June 2007, 08:11 AM

So the "Gravy Line" is all theories within 2 standard deviations of the Normal Population. Which makes perfect sense since the other 5% of theories and those that support them are not part of the normal population ;)

Well done Mackey.

I like Mackey's method. The only problem is that the competence of the person doing the rating is not taken into account. Probably less than 5% of the population understand physics at even my level, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering (Yes, even the electric engineers get two years of physics and mechanics combined).

Normal is not good. Normal went along with Hitler. Normal accepted slavery. Normal kept blacks from voting until the 60's.

TruthSeeker1234

15th June 2007, 08:16 AM

Answer what? I never claimed the U.S. (and Britain) weren't involved in that coup.

Great. Gravy admits that the overthrow of Iran in the early 1950's was a conspiracy, denied and kept secret for decades.

Answer this: Don't you think it would have been very, very important for the U.S. people to have known that in 1979, during the hostage crises?

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th June 2007, 08:30 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th June 2007, 08:30 AM

Mackey's method, like anything else, will give garbage out if you put garbage in.

His example in the OP, linked to my article, makes two utterly false claims in attempting to dismiss my velocity study:

1. Mackey claims that my hypothesis does not yield any falsifiable predictions. This is plain wrong. My hypothesis predicts that legitimate plane videos will yield more stable graph lines after stabilization than before.

2. Mackey claims that video insertion technology does not exist, or did not exist in 2001. This whopper deserves its own thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2692774#post2692774)

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th June 2007, 08:32 AM

<snip>

Answer this: Don't you think it would have been very, very important for the U.S. people to have known that in 1979, during the hostage crises?
Why? Please elaborate.

T.A.M.

15th June 2007, 08:35 AM

I like Mackey's method. The only problem is that the competence of the person doing the rating is not taken into account. Probably less than 5% of the population understand physics at even my level, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering (Yes, even the electric engineers get two years of physics and mechanics combined).

Normal is not good. Normal went along with Hitler. Normal accepted slavery. Normal kept blacks from voting until the 60's.

Engineering and Physics are only two of many aspects involved in the 9/11 attacks. You, Mr. Urich, may not be qualified to use the Gravy Line on other aspects/theories of 9/11 based on your suggestion. Incidentally, you may find that the population at JREF, and particular in this subforum, is not the average population in terms of educational background. We have a number of civil engineers, electrical engineers, Aeronautical Engineers, Architects, as well as people qualified in many other fields. I would suspect the number of people on this forum able to use the Gravy Line based on your suggestion, would be much higher than 5%.

TAM:)

Edit: Normal is the majority. Do you suggest that in every voting situation, the minority should be declared the winner?

TAM:)

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:01 AM

Slayhamlet

15th June 2007, 09:05 AM

Great. Gravy admits that the overthrow of Iran in the early 1950's was a conspiracy, denied and kept secret for decades.

Answer this: Don't you think it would have been very, very important for the U.S. people to have known that in 1979, during the hostage crises?

It's very important for Americans to know if their government has or is engaging in morally questionable actions against the interests of democracy and human rights at any time. But specifically during the hostage crisis, as opposed to any other time? Not really. The US government's wrongful actions do not give the theocratic thugs of a tyrannical government (they weren't the legitimate democracy that was overthrown, after all) carte blanche to take its citizens hostage and abuse them. Besides, I doubt that full disclosure of the decades-old coup from the government would have made a significant number of US citizens any more sympathetic to the mullahs in Iran, let alone have convinced them that the hostage taking was justified.

T.A.M.

15th June 2007, 09:06 AM

How many get a degree in philosophy? Engineering? Medicine? Interesting, I would have thought the number of Physics degrees, at least at the BSc level, to have been higher.

TAM:)

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th June 2007, 09:14 AM

. . .
Hey cut me some slack, do you know how hard it is to come up with statistics jokes?
. . .
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

AZCat

15th June 2007, 09:21 AM

How many get a degree in philosophy? Engineering? Medicine? Interesting, I would have thought the number of Physics degrees, at least at the BSc level, to have been higher.

TAM:)

I don't know about other countries, but the U.S. Department of Education tries to track this stuff pretty closely. For a breakdown of bachelor's degrees, you can go to the DoE National Center for Education Statistics Table 249: Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2003-04. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_249.asp)

This should give you some basis for answering your questions.

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:23 AM

How many get a degree in philosophy? Engineering? Medicine? Interesting, I would have thought the number of Physics degrees, at least at the BSc level, to have been higher.

TAM:)

That's what I was told (albeit by another physics student). I beleive there were 10 of us that entered the program and only 6 graduated (me barely). There were only 4 in the years ahead and behind me. There actually happens to be 15000 registered students at my alma mater. I'm guessing that only about 1 in 5 Canadian Universities has a Physics program? Either that or I am mistaken and 1 in 15000 of the general population has a degree in Physics. This actually seems more reasonable.

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:27 AM

I don't know about other countries, but the U.S. Department of Education tries to track this stuff pretty closely. For a breakdown of bachelor's degrees, you can go to the DoE National Center for Education Statistics Table 249: Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, through . (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_249.asp)

This should give you some basis for answering your questions.

No Physics programs listed! Conspiracy!

T.A.M.

15th June 2007, 09:32 AM

Well based on the responses of some of our truthers on this site, you don't actually need a degree in physics to be an expert in it...so why bother...

LOL

TAM;)

twinstead

15th June 2007, 09:35 AM

I suspect that the only thing absurd about the whole Iran situation would have been if somebody claimed it was going to be accomplished with an army of reverse-engineered alien technology robots posing as humans.

That would give it parity with the 'no planer' version of 911.

Horatius

15th June 2007, 09:35 AM

There actually happens to be 15000 registered students at my alma mater. I'm guessing that only about 1 in 5 Canadian Universities has a Physics program?

I'm pretty sure I would have noticed this back when I was applying for University, as I was looking for Physics programs. I'd think it more unusual to not have a physics program.

But they are pretty small. My class was bigger than yours, but not by much.

That's assuming there hasn't been some un-advertised slaughter of Univeristy Physics departments sometime since 1994.....

Kage

15th June 2007, 09:40 AM

That's what I was told (albeit by another physics student). I beleive there were 10 of us that entered the program and only 6 graduated (me barely). There were only 4 in the years ahead and behind me. There actually happens to be 15000 registered students at my alma mater. I'm guessing that only about 1 in 5 Canadian Universities has a Physics program? Either that or I am mistaken and 1 in 15000 of the general population has a degree in Physics. This actually seems more reasonable.

Another PHY major. The reason the numbers are so low is that few people hate themselves enough to take physics. I fell for quantum mechanics, and then got stuck with statistical mechanics and advanced E&M, which were aweful. Should have majored in Econ.

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:41 AM

Well based on the responses of some of our truthers on this site, you don't actually need a degree in physics to be an expert in it...so why bother...

LOL

TAM;)

LOL, too true. In fact having a degree may be holding some of us back, we're set in our ways and won't accept the new physics of NetForce=zero and the like. Jaded cynics the lot of us I tell yah. :)

Kage

15th June 2007, 09:43 AM

LOL, too true. In fact having a degree may be holding some of us back, we're set in our ways and won't accept the new physics of NetForce=zero and the like. Jaded cynics the lot of us I tell yah. :)

Dare I ask what netforce=zero is?

AZCat

15th June 2007, 09:45 AM

No Physics programs listed! Conspiracy!

They don't break it out, do they? I didn't notice that until you pointed it out, but you're probably lumped into the "Physical sciences and science technologies" category, ~18,000 grads in 2004.

AZCat

15th June 2007, 09:47 AM

Dare I ask what netforce=zero is?

No, you daren't. It's worth about 1.3 kS (kilo-stundies), or enough stundie to kill a goat in laboratory conditions.

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:49 AM

Another PHY major. The reason the numbers are so low is that few people hate themselves enough to take physics. I fell for quantum mechanics, and then got stuck with statistical mechanics and advanced E&M, which were aweful. Should have majored in Econ.

E&M, oh god you do hate yourself. I had a prof that taught his own unique form of relativistic approach to E&M. http://www.springer.com/west/home/birkhauser/physics?SGWID=4-40291-22-1543807-0&detailsPage=ppmmedia%7CotherBooks&seqNo=0&CIPageCounter=CI_MORE_BOOKS_BY_AUTHOR0There are two people on the planet that teach this. Nothing like making a difficult subject next to impossible. Good Times

Slayhamlet

15th June 2007, 09:54 AM

Dare I ask what netforce=zero is?

Check out the beginning of this thread: 9/11 Physics from Non-Experts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81444)

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 09:55 AM

They don't break it out, do they? I didn't notice that until you pointed it out, but you're probably lumped into the "Physical sciences and science technologies" category, ~18,000 grads in 2004.

That's what I thought too, but then again why not just "Physics"? As usual we just get "lumped" in to some other obscure group. :rolleyes:

Civilized Worm

15th June 2007, 09:55 AM

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me.

This reminds me of David Icke asking that people prove to him that they are not in fact shapeshifting lizards.

twinstead

15th June 2007, 09:59 AM

This reminds me of David Icke asking that people prove to him that they are not in fact shapeshifting lizards.

I would almost guarantee that even if EVERY single witness who saw that plane was to personally contact Ace and adamantly reiterate that they did indeed see a plane, his position wouldn't change one bit.

It's really not about evidence; it's more of an ideological thing, IMHO

Dave Rogers

15th June 2007, 10:00 AM

E&M, oh god you do hate yourself. I had a prof that taught his own unique form of relativistic approach to E&M. http://www.springer.com/west/home/birkhauser/physics?SGWID=4-40291-22-1543807-0&detailsPage=ppmmedia%7CotherBooks&seqNo=0&CIPageCounter=CI_MORE_BOOKS_BY_AUTHOR0There are two people on the planet that teach this. Nothing like making a difficult subject next to impossible. Good Times

What is it about the ability of us physicists to pick the wrong course? When I applied for doctoral work, I asked for "anything but semiconductors". Here I am, a quarter of a century later, still a semiconductor physicist. Still, I suppose I must have got used to it by now.

Dave

Slayhamlet

15th June 2007, 10:06 AM

I would almost guarantee that even if EVERY single witness who saw that plane was to personally contact Ace and adamantly reiterate that they did indeed see a plane, his position wouldn't change one bit.

It's really not about evidence; it's more of an ideological thing, IMHO

Not to mention he gives no reason why witnesses should have to contact an insane retard on the internet just to prove to him that they experienced that day what they say they experienced. Ace's hubris simply prevents him from realizing that his lame theories are inconsequential to the rest of mankind. He is as intellectually lazy as he is deluded.

gumboot

15th June 2007, 10:07 AM

To this day, though we know of its existence, we have no clue about the number of employees,

About 30,000

the funding,

Classified.

or the activities of the NSA.

Foreign signals intelligence.

-Gumboot

3bodyproblem

15th June 2007, 03:41 PM

What is it about the ability of us physicists to pick the wrong course? When I applied for doctoral work, I asked for "anything but semiconductors". Here I am, a quarter of a century later, still a semiconductor physicist. Still, I suppose I must have got used to it by now.

Dave

No fooling. At least you did post grad work, I opted out of it and can be quoted as saying "I'm not gonna be some gopher for a prof, doing all the leg work and hoping I get my name on a paper, I'm getting a job and getting paid for it" Doh! Shoulda looked at the classified ads before I made that decision. :) But don't feel bad Dave, my buddy went to MIT and got BSc.'s in Physics/Math/Mechanical/Electrical Masters Physics and E.E, then to top it all off PhD Physics (string theory) at Harvard. Last time I talked to him he was going back to Harvard for a Masters in Business cause he couldn't find a real job. :rolleyes:

Alareth

15th June 2007, 05:54 PM

The Code Breakers

One of my all time favorite books. I really need to pick up another copy.

SYLVESTER1592

16th June 2007, 01:28 AM

I guess since some people liked a program or a file that would work to calculate the Gravy line more easily and might work on a PDA... I made an excel worksheet that would calculate the Gravy line. I thick most of the HP Pocket PC's have Excel and I think the Palm types also have it, the Clio types I'm not sure of...
I think you will need to scroll around on the screen to fill in all the cells, because I really only made for myself it to use on a PC.

Most of the text is in it, so you can look up what to score and it contains a green-yellow-red color scheme to identify the absurd.

The worksheet is locked so you can't accidentally write over anything except for the parts where you have to fill in a number. To unlock the entire sheet in case you want to change something, use my call sign SYLVESTER1592.

It's in Excel 2007, but there is also one in Excel 97 format. I think they both work. If not, let me know.

Have fun

SYL :)

SYLVESTER1592

16th June 2007, 03:00 AM

I think that the calculation is a bit tricky…
It looks more like a tool to help you get a general idea about a theory then an actual ground for rejection or acceptance of a theory, although I like the attempt to create one.

Compare it to a 2x2 table:
If you will, let’s say there are 3 tested hypothesis that show an effect (E) occurs in the presence of a certain factor (F) and similarly 3 tested hypothesis show the effect does not occur in the absence of a certain factor.
The factor in question would be regarded as relevant to the occurrence of a certain effect (according to the Gravy Line).
Now let’s also suggest the presence of F does not lead to an effect in 3 more cases and an effect occurs in the absence of F in 3 more.
You would get a cross-table like this:

-- / F+/ F-
E+/ 3 / 3 /6
E-/ 3 / 3 /6
--/ 6 / 6 /12

I now regard E+/F+ and E-/F- as major positives and E-/F+ and E+/F- as major negatives. I won’t bother with the more dubious stuff.
If you would do some statistics on this, the probability of this occurring simply by chance is p=1.000, meaning that we would reject the hypothesis
The Gravy line also says p=1.000, but then equates that to a complete theory
Now let’s try this table in which the Negatives outnumber the positives or the other way around:

-- / F+/ F-
E+/ 5 / 1 /6
E-/ 1 / 5 /6
--/ 6 / 6 /12

Again regard E+/F+ and E-/F- as major positives and E-/F+ and E+/F- as major negatives. The p value is a Fisher Exact-test would be p=0.083, no where near significant enough to reject a hypothesis, but in the calculation of the Gravy line we have already reached p=256 or p=0.0039 if you would turn the positives and negatives around (as you would see in many truther arguments). This is well beyond the level to engage in any relevant debate according to this scoring system, but not in a scientific debate...

These are just some examples to consider.

Even though an objective standard is desirable, I’m not sure it already fits the standards applied in science. I guess scientists are more tolerant of the kooks... :D
At least for a little while longer... Maybe this can be fixed, but I'm not sure how.

Just something to keep in mind when engaging in debate

SYL :)

R.Mackey

16th June 2007, 02:43 PM

I propose calling this boundary of Bozotude the "Mackey Mark" or the "Demackation."

'Cause I sure as hell won't have it named after me!

Without minimizing your substantial contributions, what made you think I named the "Gravy Line" after you? ;) If I'd wanted an homage, I probably would have named it the Roberts Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Rules) or something along those lines.

Besides, the name has already stuck. No tag-backs.

Very nice, but at the moment I'm pursuing a different tack - I'm trying to determine a way to "bound" the stupidity of conspiracy theories. Is there a maximum level of stupidity that even the most stupifying theory cannot exceed? Thoughts on this are appreciated.

No. Give the conspiracy theorists any theory, a few minutes with Google, and an energy drink or two, and they'll top it. Inductively this shows that stupidity is unbounded.

The problem with this metric is it's too difficult to calculate in your head. I shall help!

[...]

In case you care, my metric is merely a transform of Mackeys, where M = 2^A, where M is the original metric, and A is the anti-sophist metric! Since mine is an exponent, multiplying Ms is actually adding As. Voila!

Your transformation is, of course, completely valid. However, I used this formulation because the "plausibility score" has an approximate physical meaning, namely it closely tracks the confidence level. This physical meaning is less apparent when passing through a logarithm.

Also, if you accept my assumption that there is only one aggregate risk, i.e. the risk of entering a fruitless argument with a nutball, then all of the contributing factors are correlated. Since these probabilities are correlated, they should not be added -- ideally you'd add in quadrature, but multiplying the complements (which is what I settled on) is more than good enough for an approximation. Your transformation is the same as mine, but since you're adding, it can give the impression of combining uncorrelated factors, even though you're not.

Just a personal choice. I try to keep things as intuitive as possible.

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Negative. I'm too old-school for that. Still have my 1st Gen D&D books around here somewhere...

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

If the math shows the particular conspiracy theory to be absurd, when in fact the conspiracy theory at the time was actually a conspiracy fact, what does that say about the formula? Is it a junk formula?

Send the whole thing through a case example and see how it plays out.

Perfectly valid suggestion, and easily done. Pick your favorite episode of Mythbusters and walk it through. Most of their cases will initially be classified as "absurd," but after analysis and experimentation, some will reach the threshold of "plausible."

Remember, this metric doesn't test to see if an argument is correct. What it tests is to see whether an argument is worth examining, or if the arguer needs to get his act together first.

As an example, if we were in the 14th Century and I told you that angels had informed me of a moon orbiting Saturn with a dense atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon%29), you'd have no obligation to investigate. It doesn't matter that I would have been correct, there was simply no way for me to know. If I can't explain my argument, I don't have one, regardless of coincidence.

I'm a System Safety Engineer, so I'm familiar with the probability/severity analysis.

I hadn't thought of it as being applicable to CT theories before, but you've piqued my interest. I'm going to give some thought over the next day or so as to whether or not some other techniques, such a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) might work. If you started an FTA with a top event such as "WTC 1 and 2 collapse", you might be able to eventually figure out how probable a theory was based on how far down in the tree the base (basic/causitive) event would have to occur before a "chain of events" could result in the top event.

What you're describing here sounds like an attempt to model fallacious reasoning across the entire Idiot Movement as a fault tree... I suppose psychotic breaks and pathological lies could be modeled as intervention events and autonomous state changes. Sounds laborious. I'm also not sure what the advantage would be, other than to classify every known nutty theory and its adherents in far more detail than the usual LIHOP/MIHOP/NoPlanes labels.

Proposal: Credibility Score Baseline

RMackey, I think your algorithm overlooks one very important factor: namely, the credibility of the person raising the argument.

I'm much less likely to believe a theory is absurd if it's been proposed by someone with a history of solidly researching everything they say, as opposed to someone with a long history of cutting-and-pasting everything they see on Prison Planet.

I deliberately left personal credibility off the table. The purpose of the metric was to avoid perception of bias, and this approach, while reasonable, would diminish that. You'll notice that I've included some opinion, but only as minor influences -- even if Stephen Hawking says my theory is right on, it's still only a minor positive at best, unless he backs it up with math in which case it can be more significant.

I believe you'll find that frequent conspiracy fliers make so many logical errors and leaps that their conduct will quickly push them below the Gravy Line, even if we don't consider historical behavior on unrelated topics.

I like Mackey's method. The only problem is that the competence of the person doing the rating is not taken into account. Probably less than 5% of the population understand physics at even my level, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering (Yes, even the electric engineers get two years of physics and mechanics combined).

Arkan_Wolfshade's response is correct. This should be done openly and is subject to review. Just like any other formal method of estimation, all of the opinions that go into the calculation should be documented. Also, a small difference of opinion is expected, since this is after all a subjective process, but the method should permit closure of large discrepancies through debate and sensitivity testing.

That's what I was told (albeit by another physics student). I beleive there were 10 of us that entered the program and only 6 graduated (me barely). There were only 4 in the years ahead and behind me. There actually happens to be 15000 registered students at my alma mater. I'm guessing that only about 1 in 5 Canadian Universities has a Physics program? Either that or I am mistaken and 1 in 15000 of the general population has a degree in Physics. This actually seems more reasonable.

My Physics class started with about 120 students, of which 24 survived to Senior Year and only 10 actually graduated. The rest moved into fields like Geophysics, Physical Chemistry, Computer Engineering, and I know of one who went into Science Writing. This is out of an extremely liberal and arts-focused public university with a total undergraduate population of about 9,000, although we had a first-class Physics department. I'd say your estimate is low, though we are certainly not numerous.

I think that the calculation is a bit tricky…
It looks more like a tool to help you get a general idea about a theory then an actual ground for rejection or acceptance of a theory, although I like the attempt to create one.

Compare it to a 2x2 table:
If you will, let’s say there are 3 tested hypothesis that show an effect (E) occurs in the presence of a certain factor (F) and similarly 3 tested hypothesis show the effect does not occur in the absence of a certain factor.
The factor in question would be regarded as relevant to the occurrence of a certain effect (according to the Gravy Line).
Now let’s also suggest the presence of F does not lead to an effect in 3 more cases and an effect occurs in the absence of F in 3 more.

[...]

I now regard E+/F+ and E-/F- as major positives and E-/F+ and E+/F- as major negatives. I won’t bother with the more dubious stuff.
If you would do some statistics on this, the probability of this occurring simply by chance is p=1.000, meaning that we would reject the hypothesis
The Gravy line also says p=1.000, but then equates that to a complete theory
Now let’s try this table in which the Negatives outnumber the positives or the other way around:

This really isn't the same thing. Also, you would not reject the hypothesis on the basis of the p value, but on a combination of p and its distribution. If you only did two tests and got one positive and one negative result, you'd also have a p = 1.0. Six tests showing evenly split response suggests there is no effect, but there is still some uncertainty... and if you've binned the results such that all positive outcomes appear the same, when in fact there is some additional structure that hasn't been captured, your conclusion would be wrong.

In my metric, the outcome is not directly observable until after the fact. There's only one experiment, i.e. you engage the argument and find out, possibly thousands of posts later, that you're dealing with a madman. It is thus impossible to construct a cross-table. I've modeled this as a risk estimate because the outcome -- you either have a useful discussion, or you waste your time with a nut, and once this is determined the discussion is basically over -- fits the profile of a catastrophic loss. There's simply no repeatability for any given case. This is an a priori test to help determine whether or not to run the experiment, not how to analyze the results. It's a subtle distinction, similar in statistics to identification and removal of outliers, as opposed to what you're doing which is treatment of the filtered data afterwards.

SYLVESTER1592

16th June 2007, 03:18 PM

Got it :D
Just testing. :) I was thinking about a logit function (multinomial logit regression) to improve it (as in other risk assessment/ prediction functions), but read your other responses.

Would probably complicate the heck out of it if we did, glad you think we don't have to, so... OK.

SYL :)

Mr. Skinny

16th June 2007, 05:55 PM

(snip)
What you're describing here sounds like an attempt to model fallacious reasoning across the entire Idiot Movement as a fault tree... I suppose psychotic breaks and pathological lies could be modeled as intervention events and autonomous state changes. Sounds laborious. I'm also not sure what the advantage would be, other than to classify every known nutty theory and its adherents in far more detail than the usual LIHOP/MIHOP/NoPlanes labels.(snip).
Your right. In the days since I posted, I've thought about it a bit more, and it really doesn't add much to the decision making process.

I was thinking that perhaps the longest "fault path" through the "and" and/or "or" gates (boy, that's clumsy to write...:) ) would tend to be the less likely theories with "legs", so to speak.

It's the "laborious" part that was off-putting, even to me. And I came up with the idea!!!:D

ETA: It would be cool to be able to calculate a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) for each and every proposed CT theory, though!

Arkan_Wolfshade

6th November 2007, 08:39 AM

:bump2: Bumping to encourage the possible use of this and also as a reminder that, in the broader scope, meaningful responses carry the day over quips.

Jonnyclueless

6th November 2007, 09:14 AM

I think the term "Gravy Strain" would be more suitable than "Gravy Line".

JimBenArm

6th November 2007, 09:17 AM

I think the term "Gravy Strain" would be more suitable than "Gravy Line".
"Strain" or "Stain"?