Why Conspiracy Theories Suck

Discussion in 'Chris Shelton's Videos' started by Chris Shelton, Jan 22, 2015.

View Users: View Users
  1. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Thanks for watching the docu, Churchill. A sad miscarriage of what's right in every sense of the word. I agree, I don't believe the doco fits in as a GCT.

    Lucky you! The Elders huh? Are they paying? Just out of curiosity what would one wear meeting these Elders? I want to be fully prepared just in case.

    :unsure:
     
  2. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    So, in your view, a cartel is a conspiracy?

    I don't like cartels either (except for my home utilities, gas, electric, water providers). :)

    Again, I think we need to define "conspiracy". Maybe it should be called "criminal conspiracy"?
     
  3. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    Well, sure I think Cartels are not a good idea. (check the definition) They restrict trade, exclude new comers, do what they can to stymie anyone encroaching upon there area of business.

    Teddy Rosevelt did what he could to bust up the Trusts...and Cartels...
     
  4. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    Hands off Gary!!! Oh wait, it's a metaphor. Carry on.
     
  5. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Please provide names of your gas and water companies to your home and I will name 2 cartels that you deal with.
    :coolwink:
     
  6. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    That is not enough. The periodic chart won't tell you how it might preferentially bind to calcium.

    What you would need is evidence that trace amounts of lithium are beneficial. This evidence apparently exists. Trace amounts of lithium are associated with lower suicide, suicide and rape.

    You would then need to show that fluoride had an effect on the uptake of lithium in the water supply. This is where there is no evidence.

    Also, if it were true, why has it not come up as a variable in any of the studies of the effects of trace levels of lithium?


    Who are they? Who are we? And how to you know that is what they want?
     
  7. eldritch cuckoo

    eldritch cuckoo brainslugged reptilian

    A black robe should do. :)
    I can borrow you mine. :)
     
  8. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    Re: worries about fluoridated water interfering with our precious bodily lithium, because periodic table.

    This is a fine example of the essential hubris of conspiracist thinking: assuming that high school chemistry lets you draw strong conclusions about neurochemistry. It's almost Dunning-Kruger in reverse: an overconfidence so ridiculous that it creates incompetence.

    Re: Occam's Razor.

    Occam's Razor has never been a principle of logic. It should maybe be re-named Occam's Backscratcher, because in practice the main use of Occam's Razor is to let people pat themselves on the back for having a simple theory. Yet just as two sides in a war can both claim God is with them, two people who disagree can each be sure that their own theory is simpler.

    The Copernican Revolution was a good example of how tricky this can be. Insofar as the planets all moved in circles with the sun in the center, a Copernican theory fit the evidence just as well as the Ptolemaic one, but without all the epicycles. In fact, though, the planetary orbits are not quite circular. They are slightly elliptical ('eccentric'). If you shrugged off the slight eccentricities of the orbits as being due to measurement error, or just unimportant, then you'd have claimed Occam for Copernicus. If you insisted that the evidence has to be respected down to small details, though, you'd have found that Copernicus actually needed more epicycles to fit the evidence as well as Ptolemy. (Everyone at the time was sure that heavenly motions had to be made up of circles.)

    Occam has been claimed on both sides of astronomical debates ever since. Einstein's theory of gravity uses ten fields to Newton's one, and it only fits the evidence very slightly better. I'd say Einstein's theory is really simpler because Newton assumes spacetime geometry plus a force field, while Einstein gets the force job done with pure (curved) geometry. Newton's spacetime geometry is only ever Euclidean ('flat'), but to me that still counts as having geometry in his theory; you still have to pay for your Porsche even if you never drive it. Lots of people used to argue, though, that flat spacetime geometry didn't count as an assumption for Newton: it was obvious, or necessary, or by-definition. Which theory postulates more entities than necessary? It's not as clear as one might think.

    Occam's Razor just isn't an independent referee that stands above the fray to adjudicate between theories. No theory ever fits all evidence perfectly, and part of what each theory does is to say how important or reliable you should consider each piece of evidence to be. So the theories themselves have words to say about just what theoretical ingredients count as 'necessary'. Theories also often say things about which of their own assumptions are supposed to be counted as 'postulated entities'.

    Occam's Razor is an aesthetic guideline, and its category is not Reason but Wisdom. It's a good guideline to keep in mind when forming one's own opinions, but to use it as an argument is to accept that the subject is a matter of opinion.
     
  9. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Well, well, well SOT....very good....very good indeed. Your Masters will be so happy with you.

    Tell me...for what does SOT really stand?

    Could it beeeeeeee....oh I don't know....Student Of Trilateralists? Hmmmmmmmmm? :unsure:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  10. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    I have proof that there is a conspiracy to make Hillary the next President. Oh yeah....it's been pre-determined. Hillary is all but admitting it. :yes:

    Oh, you don't believe me? Well read this conspiracy deniers....

    Hillary Clinton Insisting Staff Refer To Her As ‘Mrs. President’

    Chris Christie. Mike Huckabee. Maybe even Mitt Romney. Apparently Hillary Clinton isn’t fazed by any potential Republican candidates of impeding her ascension to the presidency. Reportedly, Clinton has called a meeting with her internal staff, and demanded that they start addressing her as President Clinton, starting immediately.


    (Or it could just be another piece of evidence that she's a major narcissistic Biatch) LOL....
     
  11. koki

    koki Silver Meritorious Patron


    just so,you can not delete .......
    :)
     
  12. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Had no intention of deleting. I was going to add "laughing icons" just so people would know that I'm joking with that post. There are some here who are a little too literal. I find that sometimes I need to help them "get it". :yes:
     
  13. eldritch cuckoo

    eldritch cuckoo brainslugged reptilian

    I've always had the impression that one can't be too literate. Marty would agree. :)
    Heh... Wait...
    Nevermind.
     
  14. Smurf

    Smurf Gold Meritorious SP

    "Empire News is intended for entertainment purposes only." http://empirenews.net/about-disclaimer

    [video=youtube;lgq4Wen6z30]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgq4Wen6z30[/video]
     
  15. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    I think maybe I'll go in for conspiracy theories about the past. Nothing about who is scheming now, to control the future: no, I think all the best conspiracies were at least a hundred years ago. For instance, George Washington was a Freemason. Need I say more?

    The Truth Was Back There.
     
  16. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    I look at Occam's Razor this way: the simplest theories are most likely to be true. So good critical thinking requires that one eliminate or cast serious doubt upon the simple theories before moving to the more complicated ones. People who immediately jump to complex theories, especially ones that require large numbers of human beings to keep their mouths shut for long periods of time, are committing practical, but not philosophical, logical fallacies.

    It's like when you discount a con man because he's lied so many times before: sure he might be right this time, but after getting burned a few times, there isn't enough time in the day to keep treating everyone as a blank slate. Con men and mongers of disproven conspiracy theories have a history, you have a finite lifetime, go with the simplest theory first. Then, they have to disprove your assumptions before you believe them. That's also the thinking behind the dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - a priori, it looks like you're sliding over into ad hom, but for a practical human being with a profession and / or a family that draw one's time, life's too short for that shit.
     
  17. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

  18. Mystic

    Mystic Banned

    ​"If the conspiracy theory doesn't suck, it's not worth bothering about." -- Alfred E. Newman
     
  19. freethinker

    freethinker Crusader

    Reading your article on Lithium reminded me that one effect of taking Iodine that stood out for both my friend and I is that our thresholds to tolerate things that irritate us was raised significantly. I Didn't and Don't get bothered as much by things that used to set me off. Do they still have any effect? Yes, but they don't bother me; I'm a lot less prone to being irritable, but I wouldn't call it a drugged state because it doesn't impair thinking. I'd more refer to it as greater emotional stability. That was a part of the sense of well being. I can still react to things, it isn't like it makes you numb, but it gives you restraint to think before you react.





     
  20. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    It's worse than that, SOT. This CAN be debunked using High School chemistry. You probably tried and succeeded to purge this from your data banks to make room for physics :yes:, but I had to teach this stuff long after it was ever relevant to my research.

    Any decent HS or Freshman university-level chemistry course should talk about solubility constants and equilibria. So, the periodic chart sorta, kinda tells you what will bind to what in solution, but not at what strength. Lots of stuff goes into figuring that out, not least of which is the interaction between solute and solvent. One can predict that calcium ions and carbonate ions will come out of solution at some point, but without studying the thermodynamics of water clusters around carbonate ions and the calcium carbonate precipitate, it's impossible to predict that calcium carbonate is less soluble in hot water than in cold (the opposite of most other salts), which is why we had to de-scale my hot water heater twice a year when I was growing up.

    Using this little bit of very, very basic chemistry, we go looking for the equilibrium dissociation constant of Lithium Fluoride, which tells us, with the use of a little basic math, at what concentration that lithium is going to combine with fluoride in solution and stay combined. That constant is 3.8 x 10-3.

    We will also need the concentrations of fluoride ion in water (assuming it all gets into the blood, which is approximately true). That is 1 ppm, or 5.26 x 10-5M. We'll also need the lithium ion concentrations, which max out at 1.58 x 10-3 M, but are usually half to one tenth that. But let's go with the max to give the benefit of the doubt. We then compare the reaction quotient (in this case, simply the product of the two ionic concentrations) of 8.31 x 10-7 with the equilibrium constant of 3.8 x 10-3. You can easily see that the reaction quotient is far, far below the equilibrium constant, and therefore no precipitation of LiF would occur at physiologic concentrations. The real world is a bit more complicated than that due to the blood's buffer system, but there is no common ion effect with the blood, and the actual physiologically available fluoride concentration is less than that of drinking water, so the whole idea of fluoride having an impact on physiologic lithium is still mathematically silly, and easily provably so by some HS chemistry.

    This does not, of course, mean that fluoride is beneficial at all doses. The difference between a nutrient or medicine and a poison is always the dose. The anti-fluoridation types like to talk about studies done at higher concentrations than are achieved in normal enhanced drinking water. In Sri Lanka, for example, it's been shown that high concentrations of natural fluoride in drinking water combined with high concentrations of calcium, contribute to kidney disease. The toxic effects of fluoride usually manifest themselves at concentrations of 5 ppm or greater, which is 5 times the limit of additive fluoride in the US.
     

Share This Page