Class on Conspiracy

by **AlicetheCurious** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:56 pm

I don't know what I misconstrued -- since I misconstrued it, how can I know unless you explain? The "opportunity cost" question makes a lot more sense to me than the Monty Hall one -- it's not more relevant to our topic here, but I concede it's logically sound. For whatever that's worth...

by **NewKid** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:44 pm

Well, I think you've already said it best: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Or can a case be made that, in the absence of adequate answers to the urgent questions facing us in the turbulent post-911 world, the LACK of skepticism and critical thinking surrounding a cataclysmic event like the September 11 attacks, may themselves be evidence of mental disturbance in those who refuse to allow themselves to doubt or question? <hr></blockquote> Bingo. The point of my ridiculously tendentious post was not to deceive anyone, or to waste anyone's time, but to illustrate in an absurdly over-the-top way that nobody in officialdom bothered to ask the painfully obvious questions surrounding such an important event. While I think that applies to many aspects around 9-11, I think the silence is particularly deafening surrounding the Pentagon, and represents a form of irrationality that borders on mental illness. Now remember the paradigm the professor has put forward: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Provided us a bogus paradigm of modes of thought. 1. Observation/Logic (science) 2. Faith/Authority 2a. Conspiracy/Paranoid <hr></blockquote> But again, as you eloquently noted, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The professor's approach is dishonest, in that he is ASSUMING that "conspiracy theories" are a symptom of mental or physiological dysfunction, and therefore neglecting to even question whether or not there may be any objective basis for a fully rational person to entertain such theories.<hr></blockquote> Of course. What he in effect is trying to do with the Monty Hall game is show the class a trick and establish his credibility on something that is inarguable, so that this credibility will carry over into his discussion into more controversial matters. See, what the professor says is scientific and logical and so when he tells you something later on that's more controversial, you'll know his belief is backed up by rigorous testing and logic. Trust him, because you don't/can't double check what he says. And the economists post was not meant to sidetrack the discussion in puzzles and silliness, but to reveal the problem with this in its most absurd form -- the inability of such mainstream establishment pillars to use basic logic, in their own discipline! The fact that a certain type of so-called expert cannot get the ABC's of their own discipline right is I think actually a great parody of the problem in expert cue taking. As you've said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Indeed, the US administration case for the existence of such a conspiracy rests on three pillars: faith in the integrity and decency of Washington politicians . . .<hr></blockquote> I would also add "experts" to that list. Indeed, what I think is the only thing really holding up the official story is the ability of otherwise normal and rational people to cue-take from experts on something like 9-11, and assume that if there were anything wrong with the official story, they would let the public know somehow. 'Gee, if the experts all agree, I guess we don't need to double check them.' Ah, but you do, because they can't even add 2+2! And recall the required reading list for the course: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There are two books for required reading: - Culture of Conspiracy by Barkun - 80 Greatest Conspiracies, which is out-of-print <hr></blockquote> I think this discussion of the first book on that list is telling: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hofstadter's prescience is amply evidenced in Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003). Barkun has ingested Hofstadter's imperious tome whole, and his book does little more than regurgitate its polemical eurekas.<hr></blockquote> snip <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Writers like Barkun are fond of inventing buzz concepts like "improvisational millennialism," "the cultic milieu," "agency panic," and "stigmatized knowledge claims." The latter, according to Barkun, are "claims to truth that the claimants regard as verified despite the marginalization of those claims by the institutions that conventionally distinguish between knowledge and error—universities, communities of scientific researchers, and the like." Few besides the amply tenured and remuneratively institutionalized would be likely to endorse Barkun's tweedy self-flattery as descriptive of American academia—as Jane Jacobs points out in her new book Dark Age Ahead, our colleges and universities have largely degenerated into mere credentialing factories—and what political scientists consider a science tends to be more a recruitment pool for think tanks, few of which trouble to separate knowledge from error, but simply bend data to suit the particular tank's ideological orientation.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://villagevoice.com/issues/0421/indiana.php" target="top">villagevoice.com/issues/0421/indiana.php</a> In other words, while the professor's claim will be that he fits within number 1 of that paradigm, in fact, what he will be really communicating fits much more under category 2.

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:47 pm

For what it's worth -- You're absolutely right in sticking to your guns, Alice the Curious -- I can hardly believe the Monty Hall problem of 'changing odds' can be so misunderstood by (apparently) many or seen as anything but an artifact from how the problem is explained. I think that's the ONLY real problem here -- in that the problem isn't accurately explained. As you pointed out, the game-player's odds of selecting the prize ALWAYS ends up being 50 percent. Monty's showmanship is part of the equation, always eliminating a no-prize choice -- thus always collapsing the probability odds to one in two. Perhaps the truth here is counter-counter intuitive. What the 'change to improve odds' folks ignore is that Monty's collapsing statistical odds from 2/3 to 1/2 of the two-door non-selection 'choice' is a given -- Monty will ALWAYS reveal that one of the two-doors is empty -- so the initial choice will ALWAYS result in two possible outcomes for Monty -- both of his doors are either empty, or only one of them is. But the rules of the game are that Monty ALWAYS shows us at least one empty door. So, the game-show odds at the very beginning are constained by this rule -- the player is ALWAYS betting on only one of two outcomes -- the door you select is either empty or has a prize: the odds are 1:2. With the same rules, ie., Monty ALWAYS shows you an empty door and lets you switch to another until there are only two doors -- it doesn't matter if there are 100 doors. Let's say -- You choose Door #76 out of 100 -- But each time Monty asks you to change, you stick -- Until the last choice, two doors remain -- What are your chances the prize is behind door number 76 -- 1:100? Of course not! That's because the choices are limited to only two doors. The argument '1:100' would be nothing but an artifact, an argumentative anomoly distorted by confusing initial conditions with final conditions. One doesn't improve one's odds by changing at that last choice opportunity. The counter-intuitive false-logic is but a fluke of how the choice is described. But of course, you saw thru the problem and knew that. Perhaps the 'real' point to the professor making the 'increase your odds to 2:3 by switching' argument is to bamboozle the class, to distort the class 'logic' by exercising his academic authority or see whether anyone would refute and challenge him. The dichotomy (and other) argument of Zeno's paradox is fascinating in its way because of what it says about the inherant property of fuzziness, ie. indeterminacy, of space and time at or approaching irreducable units. The 'short answer' solution to resolving Zeno's paradox is, obviously, recognizing that since Einstein we know that mass and energy are convertible, and so are space and time (ie., influenced by energy densities). But a closer examination of what Zeno's paradox focrces us to consider leads us to: What does it mean to 'halve' the distance of some incredibly small measure, ie. an atomic radiius? And: Is 'time' fluid and continuous, or does it, can it. must it occur in quantized 'jumps'? (For those who can't follow this or are bored to tears by meta-philosophical/cosmic/quantum discussion, you might wanna scroll down past the rest of my comment -- S) Beyond the distance of 'space' occupied by an atom's outer electron shell, reality and the universe get 'wierd' and inexplicable; The properties of these 'units' of space merge with the properties of time when the time units considered --by successive 'halving' operations-- approach some fantstically diminutive, elusive value -- such as the Plank time, at 1X10^-43 second -- which astute hobbyist cosmologists will recognize is equivalent to that given age of the universe (according to our theory of the Big Bang) at which 'time', our understanding of physics completely breaks down -- it is a kind of backward 'looking' into the distant history spacetime foam of the universe's blackhole navel. (Actually, at t = 10^-32 s, we can only guess at what the universe 'looked' like -- our understanding gets more and more bizarre beyond that, when the base forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity(?)) first 'crystallized' or metamorphised out of the incredible dense maelstrom energy of nuclei particle soup when the entire cosmos existed in a pointsource state essentially impossible to understand.) The radius of a proton (mean measure as this measurement depends on the vagaries of light properties as affecting measurement at these illimitable distances) is about 2X10^-16 m, or rounded to a 10^-15 m. Well before the meaning of this absolute distance 'unit', measuring space becomes problematic -- extremely problematic, as we're talking about the nuclear forces of how the 'stuff' of the universe interact with each other, the bits and pieces of the 'real' world of atoms and their various bonding properties -- the 'meaning' of an object's 'boundaries' and its relation to the space it occupies gets 'fuzzy' and indeterminate. Most of the stuff we 'touch' in the world we ordinarily 'know' and exist in, we never get much closer to than 'about' 10^-15 m -- or, one-tenth billion of a meter, ie., 1/10,000,000,000 meter -- about the range at which the electromagnetic properties of objects' and people's atom's electrons determine how the world's bits and pieces interact and which we can meaure (and describe). This is an extension of the wierdness of stuff at atomic distances, where there is more 'voidness' than substance in a macro-scale object, like tables and chairs and rocks and people. This gets back to the 'nature' of the world and the relative meaningless of describing it in terms of these kinds of quantumized intervals and distances, measures of space and time -- in which the universe is essentially opaque to our understanding and hence, we have no real way to describe it -- that 'edge' where 1X10^-43 s 'meets' 2X10^-16m. So, getting back to the hare and rabbit 'race' -- Our common-sense logic tells us, of COURSE the fleetfoot hare catches-up-to and passes the slow-but-steady turtle -- the 'paradox' is that we can't reconcile it with our explanation of why an infinitude of separation-distance halving operations doesn't imply the necessity of an 'always one more half-distance' before the hare catches up to the turtle -- at least, unless we recognize that our description and measurement of the world fails at these incredibly small time-intervals and space-measurements. Which makes me wonder if Zeno and the Classical thinkers intimated as much? This gets to the idea of a quantized measure of time, ie., an irreducable unit, which for all practical purposes, and esp. for purposes of deconstructing the argument of Zeno's paradox, ought to be something real, ie, tangible and practical and minimally discrete, such as the time light, C, takes to traverse the smallest practical (measurable, ie. knowable --with a small measure of error) a proton's diameter (roughly 10x^-15 m). Dividing C (3 x 10^8 m/s) by a proton diameter = 3 x 10^23 hertz ? Frequency? (Plank energy = 4.14 x 10^-15 eV) Alternatively: How LONG would it take light, C, to cross the distance of a proton diameter? (2 x (10^-16) m) / c = 6.6712819 × 10^-25 seconds Hmmm .... Is it more practical then to consider 6 x 10^-25 s to be the smallest practical time interval, rather than the figure I first used, 10^-43 s? This is like, 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or one one-ten-billion-trillionth of a second (!!!!!) In a similiar vein re: the smallest meaningful measures of time and space, one web post I found claims to be able to quantize a universal constant mass from quantum states of time and space, as per: The physically smallest distance – elementary length, r0 – and the physically smallest time interval – elementary time, t0 – are closely connected to Planck's constant h, the total energy/matter-mass M0 of the Universe and the velocity of light c0 in what is called vacuum. For anyone wanting to check-out this intriguing concept, the link is: <a href="http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_15.html">www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_15.html</a> The author suggests: 'The smallest physical energy/mass quanta in the Universe are identical to the ’particles’ which I have given the name unitons. Some consequences of the existence of unitons, – the true atoms of the Universe – you can study at': <a href="http://www.rostra.dk/louis/">www.rostra.dk/louis/</a> -- A VERY intriguing site featuring treatises re: a new theory of the Universe by Louis Nielson, who wrote: Holistic Quantum Cosmology with Decreasing Gravity. Perhaps the essence of this system derived via deduction is this: 'My discovery of a connection between the total mass of the Universe, elementary length, elementary time, Planck's Constant and the light constant gives a holistic context of our Universe. There is a connection between microcosmos and macrocosmos. As the smallest physical distance is determined by the total mass of the Universe, it can be expressed: "The Greatest is contained in the Smallest!" From thence: In my Holistic Quantum Cosmology I have shown which connection there is between the actual extent of the Universe, its age (the cosmic time parameter), elementary length and elementary time. Likewise I have shown the connection between the total mass of the Universe and the smallest possible mass – elementary mass. The Universe has developed from one quantum – the cosmic embryoton. This cosmic embryoton had an extension equal to elementary length, and the Universe – space, time, and thereby the nature laws – were formed within the first cosmic quantum interval. The evolution of the Universe is guided by a cosmic evolution quantum number "ticking" up through the natural numbers. The Universe was "born" when this number was one (unity)! "Today" this cosmic quantum number is extremely high, 7.2 · 10127. The evolution of the Universe is characterized by the original cosmic embryoton being split up in more and more elementary quanta. The actual number of these elementary quanta is equal to the cosmic evolution quantum number. The division and spreading of the energy originally concentrated in the cosmic embryoton is in accordance with the entropy law, "demanding" that a system evolves from a less probable and dense state to a more probable and less dense state. As the Universe develops from one single quantum mass to more and more quantum masses, spreading in the expanding space, a consequence will be that the cosmic unit for mass will vary as the Universe evolves! This cosmic variation of the physical basic unit for mass has very interesting consequences for the physical quantities we have defined in order to describe the Universe, of which we are ourselves a part. As it will be shown in the following, the evolution of the Universe can be characterized by a development up through the natural numbers! Given in cosmological units, many of the physical quantities we presume constant will vary . This is f.i. the case with Planck's "constant". Physical Quantities and their Units In order to describe the phenomena in the Universe, of which we are part ourselves, we have defined physical quantities. A physical quantity is characterized by a mathematical number, a unit and maybe a direction. Our apparent feeling, that we live in a Universe controlled by certain laws, is a.o. caused by the discovery that between certain physical quantities there exists a mathematical connection, often even a simple one. Experience has shown that all physical quantities can be defined by a few fundamental physical quantities. Even if we have more possibilities to choose physical fundamental quantities, it looks like the Universe "itself" has decided which basic quantities shall be used when deducting other physical quantities. These fundamental quantities are: Distance in space between two "points", Time interval between two events, and Mass of a matter/energy containing system. In order to be able to indicate definite distances, time intervals and masses it is necessary – also for communication of these quantities to others – to define units for distance, time interval and mass. We have innummerable possibilities for choice of definitions of these units, but the interesting question is: Does there exist a universal and absolute system of units, independent of living creatures and specific local systems? My reply to this question is: Yes! A yes, because I believe to have found these absolute cosmological fundamental units! We shall revert to these cosmological units, but first we shall look at some remarks to the measuring units we normally use in our physical description of the world. Almost all countries have agreed to use the same physical units, which are: the distance meter, the time second and the mass unit kilogram. Previously there was chaos regarding basic units, different units were used in different countries, sometimes even different units were used within the same country. The basic units used today, meter, kilogram and second, are far from being cosmologic, on the contrary they have an origin tightly connected to the human dimensions and rhythms. One meter is approximately equal to the length of a leg of an adult person. One second is approximately equal to the interval between two pulse beats, and a kilogram is approximately equal to one third of the weight of a newly born baby. Gradually it was realized that it was practical to define the physical basic units independent of human relations. As an example, the unit of length, one meter, was introduced during the French revolution, and in 1791 it was defined as one ten millionth of the distance between the North Pole and Equator, measured along the longitude circle through Paris. Based on measurements of degrees, a standard was manufactured of platin, the so-called archive meter. This should then be a secondary normal meter. Later measurements have shown that the archive meter is 2/10 mm shorter than 1/107 of the length of the earth quadrant. The archive meter was then chosen as primary normal meter, and the meter was defined as the distance between the two plane ends of the platine stick at 0° Celcius. Thus there is no more connection between the meter and the natural object Earth. Since then the meter was adjusted and defined several times. At the 11th General Conference for Measure and Weight in Paris 1960 a new definition was given. This definition is determined by a definite emission of photons from the krypton-86 atom. It was decided: One meter is 1650763.73 times the wavelength in vacuum of the emission by a jump from level 2 p10 to 5 d5 in the atom. Stoney's and Planck's "Units" At a meeting in Belfast in 1874, the Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney (1826-1911) ['On the Physical Units of Nature', Philosophical Magazine, vol. 11, p. 381 (1881)] forwarded a proposal to some "natural" units for length, time and mass, independent of human existence. By suitable combinations of Newton's gravitation constant, the velocity of light and an electric unit for charge, which Stoney had himself proposed and calculated, he could construct a length, a time and a mass. Stoney found the following values: Length = 10^-37 meter, time = 0.3 × 10^-45 second and mass = 10^-7 gram. It should be noted that the electron was only discovered in 1897 and that 'electron' was introduced by Stoney as the name of the smallest electrolytic unit of charge. Likewise it should be noted that Stoney's units are introduced purely ad hoc without connection to any theory. In 1899 Max Planck (1858-1947) ['Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge'. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 5, p. 479 (1899)] gives a mathematical description of the electromagnetic radiation from an 'absolutely black body'. In order to be able to explain the experimental facts, Planck had to break with the classical continuous physics, and had to presume that the radiation was emitted in discrete energy portions – called quanta. After the introduction of his quantum constant, Max Planck showed, by a pure consideration of dimensions, that it was possible to construct a length, a time and a mass, by means of Newton's gravitation constant, the velocity of light and the new Planck constant. The energy of one radiation quantum was proportional to the frequency of a specific radiation. This proportionality constant, connecting the energy of a quantum and the frequency, we today call Planck's Constant. By the quantization of the radiation energy and the introduction of Planck's Constant, quantum physical considerations were introduced in the description of nature. The equations for calculation of what we today call Planck length lp, Planck time tp and Planck mass mp are given by: (all gif file images -- see url) .... Today several cosmologists use these Planck quantities for conditions in the early Universe, and this in spite of the fact that the quantities can not be motivated as being fundamental for any physical theory. The motivation for their use is their small size, but nobody has foreseen the small elementary quantities from my theories. --unquote-- *** From these initial propositions, Nielson concludes: "All physical quantities, such as velocity, acceleration, force, work, energy etc. are defined as usual, but we must take in account the quantization of space, time and mass. This fundamental "atomization" causes that all movement is discontinuous – all movements are "jumps". Likewise all physical processes in a definite system will be characterized by discontinuous changes of certain physical quantities." Basically, Nielson is making the same assumptions that I have, although we come from different starting premises. As I hope to have shown, a consideration of Zeno's paradox(s) leads one to such a premise -- that there MUST be fundamental, absolute units of space and time, these must be quanta, ie. irreducable measures, a characteristic of our spacetime universe. The challenge is to accurately define just WHAT these values are, how they relate to other properties of mass and energy forces, and then to see what further discoveries via relationships of mass and energy they enable us to make about the universe. A few further tantalyzing links on the journey of deducing the inevitability of space and time quanta implied by consideration of Zeno's paradox: ZENO'S PARADOX: A RESPONSE TO MR. LYNDS (by Eric Engle)In a world that (generally) presumed that matter and energy were very different quanta, Zeno's paradox forced one to ask what is meant by motion and time ... www.lexnet.bravepages.com/ZENO.html spaceThe text proposes that space is a quantum system, as proven so by Zeno's paradox. The quanta of space are essentially photon holes, the absence of the ... www.johnkharms.com/space.htm PHOTON EMISSIONA photon is the addition of energy to a vacuum energy quanta. ... of space and time as it relates to the thought experiment known as Zeno's paradox. ... www.johnkharms.com/photon.htm Snapping and Zeno's Paradox, by Rev. Chuan Zhi ShakyaSnapping and Zeno's Paradox. by Chuan Zhi Shakya, OHY ... initiated instantaneously by light quanta that convert the sun's energy into chlorophyll. ... www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/ Literature/essays/czs/snapping.html Student Challenges Basic Ideas of Time | MetaFilterPretty soon, Achillles - or rather, the quanta which Achilles is composed of - can zap across Zeno's Paradox boundary in no time at all! ... www.metafilter.com/mefi/27402 QI Talk Forum | View topic - Beast NumberZeno's Paradox is only one weapon in the armoury of the commited Diabolicalist. ... Interesting about infinite division and quanta - I know our current ... www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=668& start=2&sid=49085f2d75f51663f9ad44ea82a849ed EBTX - The Nature of Collisions in TVF's MM ModelTom has erred in stating that the problem is similar to those in Zeno's paradox. Zeno's paradox consists of an infinite number of finites summing to a ... www.ebtx.com/ntx/colidtvf.htm scamper labs / advice / may 2000... a biology textbook, and so on smaller, until I saw quanta spinning wildly. ... Every chain of thought play-acted Zeno's paradox, as I went halfway to a ... scamper.org/advice/adv_000529.html The essence of life is self-reference-- Light quanta inside IQS are trapped like matter is trapped by a black hole in space. ... This also shows that the Zeno paradox (the movement ... www.mdpi.org/fis2005/F.30.paper.pdf DIAMOND In this volume, paradoxes by Russell, Cantor, Berry and Zeno are all resolved. ... Voter's Paradox; Metamathematics: Gödelian Quanta; Meta-Logic ... www.worldscibooks.com/mathematics/3271.html **** An important observation, essential to understanding the 'value' of paradoxes: '... paradoxes exist not to be solved but rather to teach problem solving! It is axiomatic that a paradox presents a "red herring" - that it present a problem other than the real problem that it presents - in order to force the student to discover a solution by questioning their ordinarily unquestioned assumptions.' -- Eric Engle, www.lexnet.bravepages.com/ZENO.html Ennyway -- Sorry to range so far afield here -- I imagine most folks will get glazed eyes and scroll to the next comments, but mebbe a few folks will be intrigued to reflect on these and related implications that extend from considering what Zeno's paradox can teach is. Thanks for the opportunity for tantalyzing digression, AlicetheCurious! Starman

by **NewKid** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:30 am

FourthBase, no class the other night? BTW, if you hadn't found a topic for your paper, you might consider addressing the epistemological problems generated by the information era. A primer on how a netizen can increase her signal to noise ratio and separate the wheat from the chaff. See the 'please read and comment' thread for a current example of this problem.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For what it's worth -- You're absolutely right in sticking to your guns, Alice the Curious -- I can hardly believe the Monty Hall problem of 'changing odds' can be so misunderstood by (apparently) many or seen as anything but an artifact from how the problem is explained. I think that's the ONLY real problem here -- in that the problem isn't accurately explained. As you pointed out, the game-player's odds of selecting the prize ALWAYS ends up being 50 percent. Monty's showmanship is part of the equation, always eliminating a no-prize choice -- thus always collapsing the probability odds to one in two.<hr></blockquote> Lets make this simple. You have 3 boxes. One has the money. You choose a box. Now forget the showmanship on offer here. What are the odds of YOU choosing the correct box from the original 3 ? 33% is my best guess. What are the odds of the money being in the remaining 2 boxes ? 66% is my best guess there. So, before Monty even moves a muscle, would you like the choice of 2 out of 3 boxes or one out of 3 ? 50/50 my rump. All that said, I can see how the good "proffessor" is manipulating this for his own devious ends.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:12 am

# of Players Winners Percent Winners Switched 1076 739 68.7 Didn't Switch 767 276 36.0 Nothing like Data. Try it yourself. <a href="http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html">math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html</a> I hate to say it, but slimmouse is right. He plays poker, if I'm not mistaken, so he needs to understand these things. Fuller explanation here: <a href="http://www.cut-the-knot.org/hall.shtml">www.cut-the-knot.org/hall.shtml</a> I liked this brief summary of one approach: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Let's say that you choose your door (out of 3, of course). Then, without showing what's behind any of the doors, Monty says you can stick with your first choice or you can have both of the two other doors. I think most everyone would then take the two doors collectively<hr></blockquote>. see ya

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:12 am

Odds change. No matter how many closed boxes you start with, you end up with only two unknowns. Your chances of finding a prize is therefore one out of two. Let's say it's not boxes. Let's pretend it's a talent contest. First, a thousand aspiring "idols" apply. If you're an applicant, your chances are one out of a thousand. One hundred are selected to participate in the contest. You are among those hundred. Your chances become one out of a hundred. Ten are selected to take part in the televised contest. If you are among those ten, your chances are now one out of ten. Five are chosen to be semi-finalists. You are among them. Your chances are now one out of five. Two are finalists. Get it? Your chances are not one out of a thousand, they've changed, ok? Ok? If you are one of the two finalists, then your chances are 50-50, or one out of two. Dream's End, that "summary" you quote is not applicable here: "Let's say that you choose your door (out of 3, of course). Then, without showing what's behind any of the doors, Monty says you can stick with your first choice or you can have both of the two other doors. I think most everyone would then take the two doors collectively" That is obviously a different situation, because there are THREE unknowns. Also, you may choose BOTH of the other doors. I really think we've wasted enough time on this, and if anybody is still interested, they can go back over the discussion and evaluate the arguments for themselves. FourthBase, you want to talk about your paper, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:21 pm

Just had midterm exam on Monday. I'll give an in-depth account of the class from two weeks ago in the next couple of days. p.s. I'm getting a 403 error trying to access the RI main site.

by **NewKid** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:36 am

Midterm exam. I can't wait to hear about this. It's good to hear from you FB, I was afraid it might not have been "safe" there with you and the prof. I envisioned you down in some dungeon tied up with him thinking, 'you know, I should have listened to NewKid.'<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **FourthBase** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:20 am

OK, I've dragged on details for the last two classes... What I'll do is give an update Tuesday on the last three classes. I'll have my midterm back, and I can share with y'all the questions and my mediocre responses. But now, here's something interesting, that I just found: <a href="http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/events.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=event&item_id=1768">bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/eve...em_id=1768</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Combatting Terrorism: Long and Short Term Strategies Dr. William Anderson, Chief, Strategic Asssessments Group, CIA Dr. Matthew Burrows, Sr. Analyst for Strategy, Office of Terrorism Analysis, CIA Ms. Nancy Forbes, Sr. Analyst for Science and Technology, Strategic Assessments Group, CIA Dr. Evan Hillebrand, Chief Economist, Strategic Assessments Group, CIA<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~gobev/fp/readings/Mead.doc">www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~gob...s/Mead.doc</a> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THE ABOVE IS AN UNCLASSIFIED CIA DOCUMENT <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Plenary Session - Welcome and Introduction—Dr. Bill Anderson, Chief, Strategic Assessments Group (SAG), Office of Transnational Issues (OTI)<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Plenary Session - King-Sullivan Room, End of Session Vote, Final Thoughts Session Chair—General Engel, Dr. Anderson<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> What is the CIA's "Strategic Assessments Group" that WHA is/was chief of? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 3/13/06 2:27 am

by **FourthBase** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:32 am

FALSE ALARM! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>William A. Anderson National Intelligence Officer for Economics and Global Issues William A. Anderson was appointed National Intelligence Officer for Economics and Global Issues in March 2004, after concluding a tour as the President's Daily Brief and Senior Executive Briefer for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of State. He joined CIA in 1986 and has held a variety of analytical and managerial positions, working European, Latin American, and global issues. He previously led the Strategic Assessments Group and the Economic Security Group in the Directorate of Intelligence and served an overseas tour for the Agency in the mid-1990s. Prior to joining the government, Mr. Anderson was an Assistant Professor of Economics at The George Washington University, specializing in International Economics. He completed his Ph.D. in Economics at Cornell University in 1983 and earned his B.A. from Yale University in 1974. He is conversant in French.<hr></blockquote> Not the same William Anderson. Whew...

by **FourthBase** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:33 am

Found this curious thing in the course of looking Anderson up: <a href="http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0708/local/stories/01local.htm">www.mailtribune.com/archi...1local.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Adams is a former member of the CIA’s Strategic Assessments Group and former managing editor for the London Sunday Times.<hr></blockquote> How's that for Mockingbird?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:20 am

Nice catch. I know people who wonder if the Cold War mockingbird still sings. This is like wondering if gravity still makes things fall over or if soldiers still use ammo.

by **havanagilla** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:02 am

isnt that the newspaper that published Vanunu's secrets ? if Adams was around, then, it would be interesting to speculate if and whether the entire op was CIA ?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:01 pm

The CIA and MI6 work as tag team on many projects like the Echelon communications surveillance. I'd expect that 'leaking' the info that Israel was heavily armed with nukes would serve the US's purpose of using Israel as a local heavy to keep the USSR and Arab surrogates from threatening US oil access. But there is another level where they work against each other to keep the other partner from dominating. I've read that the US Standard Oil Rockefeller cartel finalized taking control of the middle east from the British Petroleum cartel in 1988 to alter the global divisions established at the post-WWII Yalta conference which gave the UK control of the middle east where they had been controlling oil since WWI. <a href="http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm">www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> On Wednesday January 27, 1988, as announced in the Wall Street Journal, Standard Oil merged with British Petroleum. This actually represents Standard Oil's buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the newly merged company being BP-America. The Wall Street Journal did not see fit to mention worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of a deceptively titled Standard Oil regime. During the last 13 years, BP-America has merged with, or controls, all of the old Standard Oil "mini-companies" which existed before the original breakup by the U.S. government in 1911. The new Standard Oil regime is now known as BP-AMOCO, and few people in the world realize what has happened. It's now possible to understand why British Prime Minister Blair has become the spokesman for the new wars against terrorism (actually the war for Caspian Sea and Iraq oil)<hr></blockquote>. This is probably why Blair is representing the UK's 'with' faction in choosing whether to be "with or against us" as declared by Bush II. "If you can't beat'em, join 'em." And other elements in British intel can kick Uncle Sam in the knees to hobble him with leaks like the Downing Street memos. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/13/06 1:18 pm

Class on Conspiracy

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Re: Back on Track - NOT!

Re: Aww, cmon Starman.....

Re: Aww, cmon Starman.....

Re: I can't believe we're still on this...

Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Re: Update

Who is online