Class on Conspiracy

by **NewKid** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:29 am

FourthBase said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>One guy in front (I nicknamed him "Functional MRI Guy", because he seems to always talk about the usefulness of an MRI -- sidenote, I have an ever-so-slight hunch that MRIGuy is close to Dr. WHA, like some kind of plant Q&A facilitator/unofficial TA, or maybe he took WHA's other class before) described them impressively (military, installations), even name-dropped a project (Grill Flame?) and this led to WHA's highlight of the class. First WHA mentioned another name of one of the projects, "Stargate", and MRIGuy corrected him with "Starfire", and WHA insisted there was also a "Stargate". <hr></blockquote> Now we're getting somewhere. Though do tell him Lt. Col. Michael Aquino has thoroughly debunked the concept, calling it an "eyeball roller." Then watch the reaction. AlicetheCurious said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>An example of official debunking: <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html" target="top">usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html</a> <hr></blockquote> Great Scott! It really was the 19 hijackers, just like they said all along! FourthBase said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Talked about the usefulness of still using the faulty tools to interrogate someone, motioned with his hands to give us a visualization as he says "You've got your interrogator here, and..." and ends by wistfully stating (as others who would put a "benign spin" on it would) that interrogation is not a science as much as it is an art form. <hr></blockquote> A Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil"> <img src="http://www.dce.harvard.edu/pubs/lamplighter/2000/fall/images/anderson.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 2/16/06 8:38 am

by **slimmouse** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:43 pm

Look at the options before you as explained by the link. Box a. Box b. Box c 1/ good bad bad 2/ bad good bad 3/ bad bad good. Therefore, unless you have been lucky enough ( or unlucky enough ) to select the "Good" box first up, youre twice as likely to win by swapping. Let us assume you choose 'box a' in all 3 of the above range of possible permutations, you would win in 2 of them and lose only once. It is the same for initially choosing box B or box C By swapping, You are actually being the given the choice of 2 boxes , since monty can only ever open the Bad box. On edit ; Please dont let this minor distraction detract from an excellent thread btw. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 2/16/06 9:53 am

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:46 pm

Slimmouse, stop looking at the red herring, ok? You're being misdirected to the idea that the choice is between three boxes. It is not. Before making your choice, one empty box is eliminated by "Monty". So the choice is ONLY between the box you have and the other unopened box. In other words, Box A and Box B. Or Box A and Box C. Or Box B and Box C. That's it. Two boxes. One has a prize, one doesn't. 50/50.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is not. Before making your choice, one empty box is eliminated by "Monty".<hr></blockquote> Ive obviously read the whole thing wrong. If so accept my apologies. I thought youd made your choice prior to Monty eliminating one of the remaining two <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Why not try it with a friend. Assuming you choose from one of the 3 boxes first , you will be get the prize 66.666 times out of a hundred if you swap, and only 33.33 times out of hundred if you 'stick' Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 2/16/06 12:40 pm

by **FourthBase** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If I remember correctly, your assignment is a 15-page paper. That is very, very, very short. If you try to cover too much ground, you will do a terrible job, not to mention losing your sanity in the process.<hr></blockquote> Thanks for the reality check Alice! I'll settle for perhaps making the point in class, then. BTW, the Monty thing is extremely counterintuitive. It's not 50/50. You pick one, then have one of the remaining two eliminated, and if you then switch to the other you get the prize 2/3 of the time. I was sure this was wrong, but it's true.

by **NewKid** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:13 am

Why wouldn't you just think of it this way: Your odds were 1/3 when you started. They will always be 1/3s. They don't change just because Monty took one shell away. So since you always had 1/3 odds and now you know one of those thirds is gone, that means the other shell that you might switch to has 2/3s odds of being the correct one.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:10 am

Look, I'm perfectly aware that you're pushing my OCD buttons here. On the one hand, this whole "Monty" thing is getting us away from the point; but on the other, this whole "1+1=3" business goes to the heart of what "Rigorous Intuition" is all about. "Your odds were 1/3 when you started. They will always be 1/3s. They don't change just because Monty took one shell away." But of course, they do!! It doesn't matter whether you started with 3 or 100 or a million boxes. If you know that one of the boxes has the prize and the other does not, then the odds are 50/50 -- IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY THERE WERE BEFORE!!!! That's what I mean about a red herring. You are being confused by something irrelevant. Please, stop torturing me... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alicethecurious>AlicetheCurious</A> at: 2/17/06 4:30 am

by **NewKid** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But of course, they do!! It doesn't matter whether you started with 3 or 100 or a million boxes. If you know that one of the boxes has the prize and the other does not, then the odds are 50/50 -- IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY THERE WERE BEFORE!!!!<hr></blockquote> Don't want to push anyone's buttons, but I think all that we're saying is that it depends on when you make the selection. Of course, if Monty takes away the third shell before you pick, then the odds are 50/50. That's the same as Monty never having shown you the third shell at all. But as I understand the game from Fourth Base, you pick before Monty takes away the third shell. This is critical because you chose when the denominator of shells was three and not two. Monty taking away a third shell after you have chosen doesn't make your odds become 50/50 if they were only 1/3 when you picked. Sorry for the confusion. FourthBase said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyway, that was just another of his anecdote/theories that questioned the accuracy of perception.<hr></blockquote> As an aside, I think the good doctor using this experiment is itself a red herring because it doesn't necessarily illustrate anything having to do with perception or conspiracy theory. And to the extent it has any significance at all, it might actually reveal the opposite of the point the doctor would want to make -- namely that what most people might think is obvious (i.e. based on an official story or conventional wisdom) is the analog to believing that your odds change to 50% after you picked and a shell is taken away, even though it may be logically impossible (as in the case of, ahem, a certain commission's findings and conclusions). Nonetheless, every theory has to be judged based on evidence and logic. If the purpose of the demonstration is simply to show that it's easy to make an error in logic or a faulty assumption, great. That's quite obviously true, but largely meaningless until you have a set of facts and a particular theory to evaluate. But applying such a proposition to all conspiracy theories would be as faulty as the mistake the good doctor is trying to teach you to avoid. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 2/17/06 6:18 am

by JD » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:08 pm

Ahhh the Monty Hall Problem. Yes it is a bit of counterintuitive result, but after a bit of mathematical thinking and actual data gathering comprised from playing the game, I can guarentee that switching doors is indeed the best way to go. Don't believe it? For anyone who doesn't think that doors should be switched in the Monty Hall problem, I have a proposition. Let's put our money where our mouth's are. Bring lots and lots of money. I'm not going to piss around for a few thousand dollars. Then let's set up a little commercial demonstration in which you can put money on the outcome. We can run two games simultaneously, one with you being Monty Hall and me switching doors, and one with me being Monty Hall and not switching doors. If you are correct and it doesn't matter if the doors are switched, we can set it up you will make a lot of money off of me. If I'm correct and the odds of winning increase remarkably in switching, I'll make a lot of money off of you. We'll play say anywhere above 30 rounds or until you run out of money.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:32 pm

"Back in school again, Maxwell plays the fool again. Teacher gets annoyed, wishing to avoid, an unpleasant scene." Youse guys're Beatle-ing poor Monty to death!!! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> Floyd da Non-dealer

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:13 pm

Fourthbase, here are the two last links I promised: 6) Claiming that they had positive evidence that would soon be presented to all the world, that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were responsible for 9-11,  "The United States has said it is preparing to release evidence linking Saudi-born militant Osama Bin Laden with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the government would in the next few days put before the world and the American people a "persuasive" case." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1560757.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...560757.stm</a> .... and: Documents and evidence that disappeared into the memory hole never to be seen again: i) the blueprints for the WTC buildings (not even investigators were permitted to see them); LESSONS IN THE RUBBLE: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THE HISTORY OF DISASTER INVESTIGATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES …"The recycled steel was only the beginning. In the key first few weeks after the September 11 attacks, the FEMA/ASCE team was not granted full access to the disaster site. With great frustration the engineers found they also lacked the authority to interview witnesses, or to subpoena critical documents such as the World Trade Center blueprints." <a href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:2Ke3EK-YC7IJ:www.sgknowles.com/publications/text/LessonsintheRubble.pdf+%22A+NATION+CHALLENGED:+THE+TOWERS%3B+Experts+Urging+Broader+Inquiry+In+Towers%27+Fall%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2">72.14.207.104/search?q=ca...=clnk&cd=2</a> How are you coming along with the term paper? Have you decided on a topic yet? Feel free to let me know if you need anything else...

by **NewKid** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:27 pm

AlicetheCurious said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But, I do think it might be interesting for you to examine what kind of factors and environment promote the proliferation of "conspiracy theories". The lack of clear information and answers to important questions must surely be one. The sense that those who are supposed to provide people with information and ask the questions for us, such as the press and our political representatives, are failing to do so, even covering up facts and deliberately lying in some demonstrable cases, is another. The growing gulf between what people are told about the world and what they can see with their own eyes is definitely a third. <hr></blockquote> I can't imagine why you'd be suspicious that the Washington Post or the NY Times didn't file FOIAs and press the govt to see the surveillance cameras at the Pentagon and the surrounding area. I mean it's perfectly normal to have some random dude be the one to ask for that stuff more than 3 years after the event. <img src="http://www.flight77.info/docs/part2/part2-Images/0.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Nor would it be anything other than perfectly normal to withhold such evidence once requested because it is so clearly harmful to national security and the Moussaoui trial to release surveillance tapes that purportedly don't show anything impacting the Pentagon. <img src="http://www.flight77.info/85tapes.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.flight77.info/00new/n85reply.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.flight77.info/00new/appeal2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Generally, though, it doesn't help things when governments ask people to believe in magic bullets and collapsing buildings doing a free-fall into their own footprint even when nothing hit them, or in terrorist masterminds who command vast global armies of fanatical followers but whom nobody sees (and who grow amputated legs and even come back to life - repeatedly), or in miraculous passports found lying on sidewalks . . .<hr></blockquote> I think it buttresses the case tremendously to have no satellite photographs of the Pentagon showing a large object crashing into it. C'mon, it's not like the National Military Command Center would have something like that or anything. Were you not convinced by the crystal clear images "leaked" of the incident that were released by CNN, and that according to the govt in court papers, are "cropped, incomplete, and mixed with other images from sources unknown"? <img src="http://www.flight77.info/govtreply/govermentsreply10.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Next you'll start saying the govt really wants you to think something screwball happened at the Pentagon. But what reasonable person would think that? The eyewitness testimony is so compelling, and the Democrats aren't even arguing it, so the fact that the issue has devolved into debating highly speculative, technical issues that can never be proven one way or the other has no relevance at all. After all, we have the Monty Hall game to prove it! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 2/19/06 10:30 am

by **NewKid** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:36 pm

"It's true. Just ask the economists." Alright folks, if you liked Monty Hall, guess what percentage of economists got the answer to this question right: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>‘You won a free ticket to see an Eric Clapton concert (which has no resale value). Bob Dylan is performing on the same night and is your next-best alternative. Tickets to see Dylan cost $40. On any given day, you would be willing to pay up to $50 to see Dylan. Assume there are no other costs of seeing either performer. Based on this information, what is the opportunity cost of seeing Eric Clapton? (a) $0 (b) $10 (c) $40 (d) $50. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/18/most-economists-arent/" target="top">crookedtimber.org/2006/02/18/most-economists-arent/</a> "Economics -- the pseudoscience even economists don't understand!"

by **AlicetheCurious** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:32 am

For those who want to dive into an intellectual black hole, be my guests: knock yourselves out... sophistry n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone [syn: sophism, sophistication] ZENO'S PARADOXES Introduction Zeno’s paradoxes are only known from manuscripts of others. His own writings are lost. The most explicit description is given by Aristotle in his Physics. He mentions four arguments of Zeno: the dichotomy argument, the Achilles (and the tortoise) argument, the stationary arrow argument and lastly the stadium argument. The dichotomy argument maintains that no motion is possible, because going from A to B, a mobile (object) has to cross half the distance between A and B first, and then half the distance remaining etc. Therefore, it can never reach B, because there is no end to the series of halved distances. The Achilles argument maintains that Achilles cannot overtake ‘the slowest’(tortoise), because at the moment he reaches the starting point of the tortoise, the tortoise is already somewhere else (no matter how small the distance travelled by the tortoise) etc. The stationary arrow argument maintains that, at any instant, an arrow flying through the air is in some place. And because it cannot be in more than one place at the same time, in must be at rest at any instant. Therefore the arrow is not moving at any time during its flight. The stadium argument maintains that if indivisible time units existed (infinitisimals), then two chariots, with the same speed and therefore each traversing the same distance in one indivisible unit time, in opposite directions, would have an approach speed of that distance in half a unit of time, which is impossible. Zeno (implicitly) assumes that if motion exists, there must be a minimal, indivisible unit of time. Because such a unit cannot exist, there cannot be motion, because motion depends on duration. <a href="http://home.tiscali.nl/siemoppe/paradox/zeno/">home.tiscali.nl/siemoppe/paradox/zeno/</a> For the rest of us, could we please get back to FourthBase's conspiracy class & term paper?

by **NewKid** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:41 pm

Misconstrue v: to interpret in the wrong way.

Class on Conspiracy

Re: a couple of books

But Alice;

Re: Hello...

Re: Hello...

Re: Hello...

Re: Hello...

Re: Hello...

Re: Hello...

The Monty Hall Problem

Back to School

Re: Back on Track

Re: Back on Track

Re: Back on Track

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Who is online