|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2016 : 20:53:01
|
Interesting article: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs provides an equation for figuring out how long a conspiracy can last based on the number of participants, the odds of any one of them spilling the beans ("intrinsic failure"), whether the conspiracy requires constant upkeep or if it was a single event, and a couple other factors. The author used the FBI's forensics scandal, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the NSA's PRISM program (known conspiracies with known intrinsic failures) to help create the model, and then applies it to some example alleged conspiracies, like that there's a cure for cancer being withheld by drug companies. And due to that example having hundreds of thousands of researchers across many companies, the odds that such a conspiracy would be revealed reach 95% in a little over three years.
The author stresses that he's only modelling intrinsic failures - that someone involved lets the public know (like Edward Snowden with regards to PRISM). Including outside factors, like investigative journalists or accidental exposures only shortens the lifespans of conspiracies. He also tried to ensure that his model favors conspiracists as being remarkably able to keep their yaps shut. Taking both those factors into account would mean that realistic numbers for the lifespans of conspiracies would be much shorter than those shown in the paper.
Fascinating stuff. Hat tip to The Onion for cluing me into the existence of the article.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2016 : 21:04:20 [Permalink]
|
I posted this to our facebook page yesterday, and on my timeline. I probably should have brought it here as well.
Maths study shows conspiracies 'prone to unravelling'
I ran it by Mach and he said this:
He's actually using nearly the same mathematical models I study in a much simpler form. (I'm sure it's a much simpler form of his real academic work too!)
His assumptions are reasonable. His choice of the constants is not justified very much, like the chance of a single person causing the thing to fail per unit time, but it doesn't really matter -- the point is that you can choose a number everyone can agree is far lower than is realistic and you still get a high chance of failure over time. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2016 : 21:22:31 [Permalink]
|
Wish I thought of writing this  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2016 : 13:36:51 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks, Dave. I did see this posted on the Skepti-Forum Google Plus community, but I didn't delve into it at the time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2016 : 15:00:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Rebecca Watson has debunked the article.
|
I'll leave this one to you math people, Mach, Boron and of course, Dave. Mach already had one criticism of the paper, though I doubt that he actually went over and read the thing.
His choice of the constants is not justified very much, like the chance of a single person causing the thing to fail per unit time, but it doesn't really matter -- the point is that you can choose a number everyone can agree is far lower than is realistic and you still get a high chance of failure over time.
I'll tell you this much. If the paper is baloney, the premise isn't. I don't know if there is a way to test it, if this one failed, but I'd bet the bank on it. That is, the more people who are in on a conspiracy the faster it will be revealed as one. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2016 : 19:26:02 [Permalink]
|
| The crucial point of Watson's argument is that there is no (and can be no) data included in the original article regarding successful conspiracies. The premise is that all conspiracies will (someday) be unveiled, the paper merely tries to calculate how long it takes. We may hope that all conspiracies fail, but this paper assumes it, so it cannot conclude it. No math needed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2016 : 21:42:16 [Permalink]
|
| Ah yes. I see what you mean. The no good toupee fallacy. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2016 : 23:13:07 [Permalink]
|
Yup. But if you'd like to stick with the math, then any long-lasting successful conspiracy completely blows the average. Say (for example) that the Roman Catholic Church is a continuing conspiracy to lie about the existence of Jesus. Add it to the three examples from the paper, and the average conspiracy lifespan suddenly jumps from a handful of years to several centuries, thanks to the small sample size.
And given a hypothetical successful single-event conspiracy where the conspiracists eradicated all evidence and are now all dead, then one would need to add an infinite number of years into the average. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2016 : 02:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Plug in Christianity into the math, and see how long it is supposed to survive.
Edited: Doh! I didn't read Dave's post above before posting this.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/13/2016 02:37:06 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lifespan of a conspiracy
