General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[VILLAMARV]

43 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

This is well said and resonates with me.

What interested me in the Russo video was purely Russo. Here's a guy with a career in more than one field where by he is recognised on a world stage, and he's going to jeopardise that to head a false conspiracy movement?

"Some even believe we a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterising me and my family as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world if you will. If that's the charge, I am guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller (Memoirs).

So in his own words a Rockefeller admits to having an agenda and interest in global affairs, as you inevitably would with such power and money, how sinister and far fetched some theories would suggest it gets goes beyond my understanding.

The problem (as well said by Limpid) is in the voracity of the evidence.

Even if the conversation actually happened and Russo tells the truth it proves nothing other than a rich man had a conversation with another rich man over dinner somewhere.

Key word in the last bit. Without evidence it is all a theory. Causality and Correlation are 2 very different things.

[A'Villan]

51 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

The problem (as well said by Limpid) is in the voracity of the evidence.

Even if the conversation actually happened and Russo tells the truth it proves nothing other than a rich man had a conversation with another rich man over dinner somewhere.

Key word in the last bit. Without evidence it is all a theory. Causality and Correlation are 2 very different things.

Without evidence it makes it difficult for people to discern the truth. There would be a multitude of circumstances and happenings that we are not attuned to due to a lack of evidence in nearly every aspect of our lives, that doesn't mean these things don't occur.

It took over a decade for Fred Hampton's family to see any justice for his assassination by the FBI. Just because there was little evidence doesn't mean a profound young man with a great sense of community wasn't killed for some pretty disturbing reasons by an agency in charge of national security. COINTELPRO is enough evidence for me to be at least slightly suspicious of the ethics, morale and authenticity of anything that has relation to America's security services. Then you have the MK-ULTRA program which is evidence of the standards and ethics the U.S will stoop to in order to obtain its objective.

35 years for the Northwood Documents to be declassified, which included the plan to hijack planes and commit terrorist attacks on U.S citizens. For over three decades we are none the wiser. Yet the wheels were still in motion regardless of our awareness and perception of things.

Correlation can help you to predict the future, causality can allow you to change it. I think they're synonymous with each other rather than different, although I get where you're coming from.

There's plenty correlation and perhaps a bit of causation in this:

Cheney was Secretary of Defense when Al-Qaeda were supposedly funded with 6 billion dollars from 1989-1992, was VPOTUS during 9/11, CEO of Halliburton from '95-2000 which is the corporation which got the 7 billion dollar exclusive contract in Iraq shortly after 9/11, not to mention the pipeline plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I'm open to the idea the war was more about colonialism than out of control middle eastern countries.

[snowychap]

35 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Without evidence it makes it difficult for people to discern the truth.

Without evidence, it makes it impossible.

[snowychap]

38 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Correlation ..., causality .... I think they're synonymous with each other

It depends what you mean by synonymous.

Having the same meaning - that's a no.

Closely associated with - perhaps.

Correlation, however, does not imply causation.

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

It depends what you mean by synonymous.

Having the same meaning - that's a no.

Closely associated with - perhaps.

Correlation, however, does not imply causation.

If I have a glass of milk before I go to bed every night, there is a clear correlation between the two events - if I'm in bed, it is statistically highly likely that I've had a glass of milk. 

But there is zero causality involved. Having a glass of milk does not in any way cause me to go to bed. 

[villakram]

18 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

If I have a glass of milk before I go to bed every night, there is a clear correlation between the two events - if I'm in bed, it is statistically highly likely that I've had a glass of milk. 

But there is zero causality involved. Having a glass of milk does not in any way cause me to go to bed. 

Please carry out this experiment. We'll need at least a 100 night with milk and 100 w/o. Even then, the statistics will be a little shakey, but we'll have grounds to apply for funding for a larger study, i.e.,

Phase 1: Expand to 1000 nights (3 sigma land) and a number of subjects (you've got family, so they'll do).

Phase 2: Does the quantity of milk matter?

Phase 3: Does the source of milk matter. Cows milk might be no good, but cats!

Sounds like a good career this lark.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

Phase 2: Does the quantity of milk matter?

There's the potential for some sort of continence (prostate-related) research cross-over here, no?

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap

[A'Villan]

22 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Without evidence, it makes it impossible.

I guess you're spot on there. Even intuition relies on some form of cue.

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It depends what you mean by synonymous.

Having the same meaning - that's a no.

Closely associated with - perhaps.

Correlation, however, does not imply causation.

Closely associated. Correlation does not imply causation but causation does not happen without correlation. You can have causation without correlation but it would entail a lack of variation/manipulation of facts which would not be a true representation of events, therefore defeating the purpose of any honest analysis.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

You can have causation without correlation but it would entail a lack of variation/manipulation of facts which would not be a true representation of events, therefore defeating the purpose of any honest analysis.

It would be a decent thing to refer back to the person who said/wrote this.

[A'Villan]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It would be a decent thing to refer back to the person who said/wrote this.

What do you mean?

It's my writing based on my understanding of the relationship between the two.

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

It's my writing based on my understanding

What does a 'lack of variation' mean, based on your understanding?

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap

[a m ole]

good opportunity to post this website.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

[A'Villan]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What does a 'lack of variation' mean, based on your understanding?

 

Looking at an isolated range of information that misses other causal relationships. Presenting facts/data that are missing pieces of the puzzle,

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Looking at an isolated range of information that misses other causal relationships. Presenting facts/data that are missing pieces of the puzzle,

It would appear, then, that your understanding is that trying to gain as many facts, as much data and as many variables concerning a situation as possible would likely improve the level of analysis that could be made about it?

[A'Villan]

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It would appear, then, that your understanding is that trying to gain as many facts, as much data and as many variables concerning a situation as possible would likely improve the level of analysis that could be made about it?

Absolutely

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Absolutely

Talking of 'cross-over'...

[A'Villan]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Talking of 'cross-over'...

This has gone over my head.

You've got me thinking basketball cross overs.

Feel free to elaborate.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

This has gone over my head.

Thread cross-over in this case (probably better without the hyphen, I guess), i.e. what you appear to have readily accepted in this thread doesn't seem to fit well with the approach in other threads (as well as not in here but that's a a separate thing).

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap

[A'Villan]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Thread cross-over in this case (probably better without the hyphen, I guess), i.e. what you appear to have readily accepted in this thread doesn't seem to fit well with the approach in other threads (as well as not in here but that's a a separate thing).

I thought it might be that, what with you rolling your eyes at me. I just wanted to clarify. I think Limpid might've been alluding to something similar.

I don't know if my views do conflict from one thread to the next. I understand I made a contentious comment about science in the religion thread.

My standpoint is that research and published results tend to be biased. Not only this but I don't necessarily hold the view that people who value a scientific approach are guaranteed to have irrefutable arguments or evidence.

As for my belief in God, my interest in the history of religion or my beliefs about consciousness I understand that they don't necessarily align with conventional thought. I am also open to the possibility that I have it wrong. I'm certainly no scholar or doctor.

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I thought it might be that, what with you rolling your eyes at me. I just wanted to clarify. I think Limpid might've been alluding to something similar.

I don't know if my views do conflict from one thread to the next. I understand I made a contentious comment about science in the religion thread.

You seem to have utterly misunderstood what I said in the post you quoted and, perhaps, the conclusion at which you arrived earlier this evening.

It's not about views you hold, opinions you proffer or 'beliefs'.

Quote

My standpoint is that research and published results tend to be biased. Not only this but I don't necessarily hold the view that people who value a scientific approach are guaranteed to have irrefutable arguments or evidence.

You can't use skepticism as a springboard for belief. That's nonsense.

Extreme skepticism (something to which I can tend in a philosophical extreme) can only deconstruct. Putting something definitive in the place of that for which there is evidence, on the basis that you've put forward above, is pure fantasy (stopped clocks, guesses of the weight of a cow, &c. taken in to account).

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap