PRO
CON
Click on a statement to select it. Hold the mouse button and move it to scroll the graph

Tentatively
REFUTED

Tentatively
REFUTED

The method and conclusions of the PLOS paper `On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs`
By: Eric, on 06 Jun 2019


The method and conclusions of ?the PLOS paper `On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs` Are included by reference to this link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

?for example, ?they assume the moon landing hoax conspiracy is false, ?the harmful vaccine conspiracy is false, ?the climate change hoax conspiracy is false, ?and the cancer cure conspiracy is false. ?furthermore??to quote from it:

`most part to the concealment of their activity. We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant?such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation. Thus, it follows that the act of a conspiracy being exposed is a relatively rare and independent event. We can then apply Poisson statistics, and express the probability of at least one leak sufficient to lead to failure of the conspiracy as...`

`To use the model, realistic parameter estimates are required. In particular, the parameter?p, the probability of an intrinsic leak or failure, is extremely important`

`The analysis here predicts that even with parameter estimates favourable to conspiratorial leanings that the conspiracies analysed tend rapidly towards collapse.`

?


53 Views since Rating Change   119 Views 
Proofs (0) - PRO To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Refutations (3) - PRO TO Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Proofs () - PRO To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Refutations () - CON To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Responses: 4
Views: 186
Authors: 1
Graph Last Updated: 18 Jul 2019
Topic Statement Status Last Changed: 15 Jun 2019
The method and conclusions of the PLOS paper `On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs`
The author is demonstrably delusional because he doesn't realize exposure is nothing
This is mistaken about what the scientific literature actually says in all four cases, cargo cult science
The paper is also wrong about how few people can run a secret operation in the know

The method and conclusions of ?the PLOS paper `On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs` Are included by reference to this link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

?for example, ?they assume the moon landing hoax conspiracy is false, ?the harmful vaccine conspiracy is false, ?the climate change hoax conspiracy is false, ?and the cancer cure conspiracy is false. ?furthermore??to quote from it:

`most part to the concealment of their activity. We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant?such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation. Thus, it follows that the act of a conspiracy being exposed is a relatively rare and independent event. We can then apply Poisson statistics, and express the probability of at least one leak sufficient to lead to failure of the conspiracy as...`

`To use the model, realistic parameter estimates are required. In particular, the parameter?p, the probability of an intrinsic leak or failure, is extremely important`

`The analysis here predicts that even with parameter estimates favourable to conspiratorial leanings that the conspiracies analysed tend rapidly towards collapse.`

?


As demonstrated by the previous refutation,  the author is wrong on the facts on each of the four conspiracy theories he thought were slamdunk hoaxes.  The likely reason he is so deluded is that he thinks ( and his paper posits)  that if some whistleblower were to come forward,  that would be the end of the hoax.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What he considers to be the end of the hoax is when the government authority accepts publicly and the majority accepts publicly that the hoax has been debunked.  The situation in all four cases is that science makes clear the hoax is is real, but the public and the authorities are on the other side and are delusional or lying.

The news media is largely controlled and won't cover whistleblowers.  Even Snowden had to go abroad to find a paper where he could publish because the domestic journalism was too  owned by the deep state,  as has become clear now following Russia gate. William Binney  also blew the whistle on NSA abuses years before Snowden and nobody paid any attention.  Even after both Snowden and Binney,  absolutely nothing has been done to stop the abuses or punish the guilty.  it's even possible Snowden was a double agent because they want people to know. The CDC whistleblower,  a senior scientist with the CDC who had testimony and documentary evidence that the CDC was committing fraud about vaccine autism connection, was whitewashed by the media,  which obtain a vast fraction of their advertising budget from big Pharma.  Again he had no impact at all. So here we have two examples of whistleblowers that had no effect although they were very senior within the organizations they were exposing.. The problem is not that the evidence of fraud is not readily available,  the problem is people ignore it,  refuse to believe it.

 Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf  describe the phenomenon: "
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

On vaccines it's not only that there are whistleblowers,  it's that the facts are published in plain sight in the scientific literature but the media and the conventional wisdom simply refuses to acknowledge it. Truthsift demonstrates this because it demonstrates that the scientific literature says what it says   because the posts about it can't be rationally challenged.

It is demonstrated here that the majority are often wrong even or perhaps especially when they are credentialed and widely admired: https://truthsift.com/graph/On-Controversial-Topics,-Who-is-More-Often-Right,-the-Majority-or-a-Minority/466/1/4867/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0#lnkNameGraph

 this occurs because of a variety of things.  majority is more susceptible to propaganda than rationality.  dissenters need a very good reason for their belief because they are persecuted, and that good reason is usually rationality.  cargo cult science  occurs whenever people refuse to look at the arguments of the opposite side,  as was pointed out by Richard Feynman,  and this is a natural human tendency,  and explains each of the four hoaxes Grimes  was deluded about.  the solution to this problem is to draw up a Truthsift diagram  as we are doing,  because on a Truthsiift diagram  both sides get to challenge,  and one unrebutted challenge can change the status of the whole argument.


The scientific literature states quite clearly that vaccines are harmful and that they have been of limited utility.  This is demonstrated with links to the scientific literature at the following truthsift diagrams.  if you think they are wrong,  please challenge there and reverse them.

https://truthsift.com/graph/Are-Vaccines-Safe/406/0/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0 You will find there at present that every single argument for safety has been correctly rebutted and that there are extensive arguments for damage for which all of the rebuttals have been in turn rebutted.  It would only take a single citation into the scientific literature showing empirical work indicating vaccine aluminum is safe in the quantities administered to rebut it,  but all but Rebuttal attempts have been seen to be wrong and there is no such paper in the literature,  lies by the CDC to the contrary notwithstanding. if you think there is please add the cite.

https://truthsift.com/graph/Does-the-available-evidence-indicate-Flu-vaccines-damage-the-immune-system-of-recipients-in-other-ways/386/1/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0

https://truthsift.com/graph/The-Evidence-Is-Weak-That-Vaccines-Have-Saved-More-Lives-than-They-Have-Cost--/520/0/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0

https://truthsift.com/graph/Does-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-indicate-vaccine-aluminum-causes-autism/732/0/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0

 here is Tony Heller's latest debunking video on climate change hoax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=9ypfKYlBQoY&fbclid=IwAR1tjzUwRhZGvXtrWhWBzWSFC5MIwJPq3tSALYbcc6e62_wtCJG02uIOY_0

The fraudulent nature of the global warmism claims are further proved here: https://truthsift.com/graph/Will-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-Heat-the-planet-by-at-least-.5-degrees-C-by-2100./502/0/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0#lnkNameGraph

  please refute them if you can.

The proof that  the moon landing landing actually happened  is currently debunked here: https://truthsift.com/graph/The-1969-manned-moon-landing-was-real/816/0/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0

 

 

 


 it ignores secret operations like Los Alamos which were able to keep complete  secrecy despite having hundreds of thousands of employees.   only  several dozens of people knew the full story.  or Bletchley Park which had 8000 employees and they kept the secret for 25 years after the war before they finally decided to release it.  the government is very good at compartmentalization.

 by the way,  it is not 100% clear  that Snowden isn't a  double agent,  and the NSA wanted us to know so we'd be intimidated.  it is like anything is ever happened to any of the lawbreakers who did the surveillance.

 


click