The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread

[Raithe]

Heh. The random things you recognise from Iaido kata...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7cGxipO_IA

[Raithe]

On that whole Australian University giving a PhD to a thesis on anti-vaccination....

 

Brian Martin and Judy Wilyman - Promoting Antivaccine Psuedoscience as dissent

 

 

 

Yesterday, I wrote about what can only be described as an academic travesty. What riled me up sufficiently to lay a heapin’ helpin’ of not-so-Respectful Insolence on a graduate student named Judy Wilyman, her PhD thesis advisor Brian Martin, and the University of Wollongong was the fact that Wilyman is an antivaccine loon and the University of Wollongong saw fit to bestow a PhD on her for a thesis riddled with antivaccine tropes and pseudoscience. As I pointed out at the time, the University of Wollongong deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt for allowing this travesty to come to pass, but what about Brian Martin? After all, it is the thesis advisor who bears the most responsibility for making sure that the work done by a PhD candidate is academically rigorous (which Wilyman’s work was not). Sure, there’s a thesis committee to whom PhD candidates periodically present their work and who are supposed to give constructive criticism and advice and make sure the candidate’s work is up to snuff.

 

I can’t bring myself (yet) to go through the entire thesis. It is, after all, 390 pages long, which means I might never find the time to read it all. I don’t know that I really need to, anyway, if what I’ve read thus far is any indication. Truly the burning antivaccine stupid is black hole density, sucking all science and knowledge into its event horizon, never to be seen again. Brian Martin, however, has defended Wilyman’s thesis and her against attacks. I was curious what defense anyone could come up with to justify such a load of pseudoscientific tripe, rife with easily refutable downright incorrect information. So when I read Brian Martin’s defense of this whole fiasco, entitled Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student, I ended up thinking that this topic deserved a followup post addressing his justifications.

Sadly, the very first paragraph of Martin’s article lets the reader know where he’s coming from, and where he’s coming from is not from anywhere resembling science. He starts out noting that “Judy’s thesis is long and detailed.” Well, yes, I’ll give it that, but if the details are nearly all wrong, length is not a virtue. I like to think that I get away with my penchant for logorrhea because my prose is (usually) entertaining and engaging and because I get the facts and science right. So, although I sometimes get complaints about the length of my posts, most of the time no one minds. In contrast, Wilyman’s “long and detailed” thesis is indeed very detailed, but the vast majority of details are either factually incorrect or distorted.

Martin thus begins:

 

It makes four main critical points in relation to Australian government vaccination policy. First, deaths from infectious diseases had dramatically declined in Australia before the mass introduction of most vaccines, suggesting that vaccination is not the only factor in controlling these diseases

.

 

Antivaccine trope: Vaccines didn’t save us, one of the more intellectually dishonest of some very intellectually dishonest antivaccine tropes.

 

Second, Australian vaccination policies were adopted from a one-size-fits-all set of international recommendations, without consideration of the special ecological conditions in Australia, for example the levels of sanitation and nutrition, and the incidence and severity of diseases.

 

Antivaccine trope: The “sanitation” gambit. The easiest way to refute this trope is to point out that polio and measles ran rampant in the US in the 1950s, even though sanitation was perfectly fine and children were well nourished. It wasn’t until vaccines for these diseases were developed that the incidence plummeted. Also, sanitation doesn’t do much good against diseases whose spread is primarily through the air, like the measles.

 

Two down. What’s next? Oh, goody:

 

Third, nearly all research on vaccination is carried out or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in selling vaccines; the conflicts of interest involved in vaccine research can lead to bias in the research design and conclusions drawn.

 

Pharma shill gambit, reporting for duty, sir!

Then:

 

Fourth, there are important areas of research relevant to vaccination policy that have not been pursued, but should have been; a plausible reason for this “undone science” is that the findings might turn out to be unwelcome to vaccination promoters.

 

Ah, yes. The “inconvenient facts ‘they’ don’t want you to discover” trope. What, pray tell, might these “inconvenient” facts be? That vaccines cause autism, perhaps? Given Martin’s defense of Andrew Wakefield and his characterization of criticism of him as “suppression of vaccination dissent” one has to wonder how much Martin buys into antivaccine pseudoscience. Quite a lot, I suspect.

 

Here’s the problem. All Martin sees when it comes to antivaccine activists is “dissent.” I suppose such views do represent “dissent” of a sort, but they sure don’t represent well-informed dissent based on facts, logic, and science. Unfortunately, Martin doesn’t seem to distinguish between dissent based on facts, science, and logic and dissent based on pseudoscience and misinformation. Wakefield’s “dissent” was clearly based on the latter. So is Wilyman’s “dissent.” Martin, however, doesn’t seem to recognize this. It’s postmodernism at its worst. There are no “narratives” that are closer to the truth than others. If you believe that, then “telling both sides” becomes paramount and any attempt to censor or shut down pseudoscience is viewed not as a proper enforcement of scientific standards, but an attempt to crush “dissent.” That’s the entire worldview of Brian Martin in a nutshell. Indeed, only a couple of months ago, Martin referred to criticism of Wilyman as the “mobbing of a PhD student“:

 

Mobbing, or collective bullying, usually develops for a reason, though sometimes it is difficult to identify the original trigger. In Judy’s case, the reason is obvious enough. She debates vaccination in public forums, and there is a group of campaigners who want to silence any public questioning of the official government vaccination policy.

 

Yep. Martin has played the “bully” card. It’s a favorite card of antivaccinationists. Any criticism of rank pseudoscience is portrayed as “bullying” rather than reasonable criticism.

 

Speaking of reasonable criticism, let’s look at what Martin considers unreasonable criticism. Basically, he identifies what he considers to be illegitimate attacks thusly:

 

When people criticise a research student’s work, it is worth checking for tell-tale signs indicating when these are not genuine concerns about quality and probity but instead part of a campaign to denigrate viewpoints they oppose.

1. They attack the person, not just their work.
2. They concentrate on alleged flaws in the work, focusing on small details and ignoring the central points.

They make no comparisons with other students or theses or with standard practice, but rather make criticisms in isolation or according to their own assumed standards.

They assume that findings contrary to what they believe is correct must be wrong or dangerous or both.

The attacks on Judy’s research exhibit every one of these signs. Her opponents attack her as a person, repeatedly express outrage over certain statements she has made while ignoring the central themes in her work, make no reference to academic freedom or standard practice in university procedures, and simply assume that she must be wrong.

 

This is such incredible nonsense, not to mention rank hypocrisy. After all, how often have I documented how antivaccine warriors attack the person because they can’t successfully challenge the science? I myself have been at the receiving end of such attacks, most prominently five years ago, when Jake Crosby falsely insinuated that I had undisclosed conflicts of interest, and as a result ai endured a campaign on the part of antivaccine activists to get me fired from my job. It didn’t work (fortunately), but it was a quintessential example of how cranks attack the person and not the science. They can’t attack the science because they don’t have it on their side.

 

As for the second claim, Martin appears utterly clueless. It is the central points of Wilyman’s thesis that are being criticized—and quite rightly so—based on facts, science, and logic. Similarly, it’s not bias that leads those of us who defend vaccines to conclude that attacks on vaccination like those made by Wilyman are wrong or dangerous or both. They are wrong and dangerous, and we can demonstrate that. We have demonstrated that time and time again.

None of this stops Martin from asserting:

 

The attacks on Judy Wilyman and her PhD research should be understood as part of a campaign to denigrate and discourage anyone who dares to make public criticisms of standard vaccination policy.

 

Uh, no. The criticism of Judy Wilyman and her PhD “research” (and I do use the term loosely) derives from her repetition of antivaccine tropes and conspiracy theories. Really, it is just that simple. Sadly, Brian Martin is utterly clueless when it comes to understanding this. If you doubt my assessment, just look at how Martin characterizes criticism of Andrew Wakefield:

 

Unlike most of his peers, Wakefield has been subject to a degradation ceremony, a ritualistic denunciation casting him out of the company of honest researchers (Thérèse and Martin, 2010). By degrading Wakefield’s reputation, vaccination is symbolically vindicated and the credibility of any criticism undermined. Supporters of vaccination have repeatedly used the example of Wakefield to suggest that criticism of vaccination is misguided (e.g., Grant, 2011: 105-124; Offit, 2010). The logic of using Wakefield’s ignominy as an argument in defense of vaccination is not replicated in the case of a single biomedical scientist who supports standard views. Considering that bias and conflict of interest are endemic to pharmaceutical-company-sponsored research, it is striking that no supporter of orthodoxy concludes that this discredits support for pharmaceutical drugs generally. (Some critics draw this conclusion.)

 

Gee, I can’t help but thinking, Martin says this as though it were a bad thing.

Here’s the problem. Wakefield really is a scientific fraud. Brian Deer has extensively documented this conclusion. Wakefield does have real ignominy. He deserves it. It isn’t a bad thing to point this out, either.

 

Basically, Martin has a history of being sympathetic to medical cranks. He views crank views as “medical dissent.” Technically, I suppose they are, but not in a good way and certainly not in a useful way. Unfortunately, Brian Martin doesn’t recognize these differences. To him all “dissent” is potentially valid, no matter how pseudoscientific it is. That’s how Judy Wilyman got her PhD.

 

 

[Raithe]

Rather than restart up a reading thread just for this.

 

While on one hand I'm impressed with this, I think I would prefer something to use for more books....

 

 

 

My Wheel of Time bookshelf

Finished it. When you spin it, the books will stay level.

My thanks for Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson’s Masterpiece.

“The Wheel of Time turns, …….

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gfted1]

The Case of the So-Called Alien Megastructure Just Got Weirder.

[Hurlshort]

I'm a bit surprised they went with paperback for that wheel of time.  I would think hardcover would hold up better.

[Raithe]

But considering the hardbacks.. the weight issue might have been a problem...

[Raithe]

Now that could make an exercise routine...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U70GohW7ZCU

[JadedWolf]

How Forbes inadvertently proved the anti-malware value of ad blockers

[Darkpriest]

I was not sure where to put this, so i guess it lands here...

 

This is a vid of some art pieces made by an artists, who also made some art for games such as Civ 5 and Total War Rome 2

 

 

I like his work, so decided to share it here.

[Raithe]

Buzzfeed - What actors see when they're onstage

[Elerond]

Saudi fatwa banning chess stirs online outcry

 

"A fatwa issued by Saudi Arabia’s top cleric prohibiting chess in Islam and equating it with gambling has caused a stir on social media.

 

In a video of a television programme posted online, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al Sheikh appears categorical when asked about the board game in Islam.

 

“Chess is prohibited. It is gambling,” said Sheikh, insisting that it was a “waste of time and money and a cause for animosity between players”."

 

 

"Lebanese television producer Nasser Fakih tweeted: “Saudi mufti has declared chess haram. Apparently this game makes you use your brain, and this is haram!”"

[Raithe]

Heh, Eric Flint has just done a blog post on what he considers the best reading order to use when trying to get into the Ring of Fire series..
I guess that's the perils of creating a long running and multi-threaded series of stories...
 
EricFlint.net : 1632 Series Reading Order
 

Whenever someone asks me “what’s the right order?” for reading the 1632 series, I’m always tempted to respond: “I have no idea. What’s the right order for studying the Thirty Years War? If you find it, apply that same method to the 1632 series.”

 

However, that would be a bit churlish — and when it comes down to it, authors depend upon the goodwill of their readers. So, if all you want is the results, skip to the summary. For the explanation, as best I can, here goes.

 

The first book in the series, obviously, is 1632. That is the foundation novel for the entire series and the only one whose place in the sequence is definitely fixed.

Thereafter, you should read either the anthology titled Ring of Fire or the novel 1633, which I co-authored with David Weber. It really doesn’t matter that much which of these two volumes you read first, so long as you read them both before proceeding onward. That said, if I’m pinned against the wall and threatened with bodily harm, I’d recommend that you read Ring of Fire before you read 1633.

 

That’s because 1633 has a sequel which is so closely tied to it that the two volumes almost constitute one single huge novel. So, I suppose you’d do well to read them back to back.

 

That sequel is 1634: The Baltic War, which I also co-authored with David Weber. 1632, 1633, 1634: The Baltic War, 1635: The Eastern Front and 1636: The Saxon Uprising
constitutes what can be considered the “main line” or even the spinal cord of the entire series. Why? First, because it’s in these five novels that I depict the major political and military developments which have a tremendous impact on the entire complex of stories. Secondly, because these “main line” volumes focus on certain key characters in the series — Mike Stearns and Rebecca Abrabanel, first and foremost, as well as Gretchen Richter and Jeff Higgins.

 

Once you’ve read 1632, Ring of Fire, 1633 and 1634: The Baltic War, you will have a firm grasp of the basic framework of the series. From there, you can go in one of two directions: either read 1634: The Ram Rebellion or 1634: The Galileo Affair.

 

There are advantages and disadvantages either way. 1634: The Ram Rebellion is an oddball volume, which has some of the characteristics of an anthology and some of the characteristics of a novel. It’s perhaps a more challenging book to read than the Galileo volume, but it also has the virtue of being more closely tied to the main line books. Ram Rebellion is the first of several volumes which basically run parallel with the main line volumes but on what you might call a lower level of narrative. A more positive way of putting that is that these volumes depict the changes produced by the major developments in the main line novels, as those changes are seen by people who are much closer to the ground than the statesmen and generals who figure so prominently in books like 1632, 1633, and 1634: The Baltic War.

 

Of course, the distinction is only approximate. There are plenty of characters in the main line novels — Thorsten Engler and Eric Krenz spring immediately to mind — who are every bit as “close to the ground” as any of the characters in 1634: The Ram Rebellion.

 

Whichever book you read first, I do recommend that you read both of them before you move on to 1634: The Bavarian Crisis. In a way, that’s too bad, because Bavarian Crisis is something of a direct sequel to 1634: The Baltic War. The problem with going immediately from Baltic War to Bavarian Crisis, however, is that there is a major political development portrayed at length and in great detail in 1634: The Galileo Affair which antedates the events portrayed in the Bavarian story.

 

Still, you could read any one of those three volumes — to remind you, these are 1634: The Ram Rebellion, 1634: The Galileo Affair and 1634: The Bavarian Crisis — in any order you choose. Just keep in mind that if you read the Bavarian book before the other two you will be getting at least one major development out of chronological sequence.

After those three books are read, you should read 1635: A Parcel of Rogues, which I co-authored with Andrew Dennis. That’s one of the two sequels to 1634: The Baltic War, the other one being 1635: The Eastern Front. The reason you should read Parcel of Rogues at this point is that most of it takes place in the year 1634.

 

Thereafter, again, it’s something of a toss-up between three more volumes: the second Ring of Fire anthology and the two novels, 1635: The Cannon Law and 1635: The Dreeson Incident. On balance, though, I’d recommend reading them in this order because you’ll get more in the way of a chronological sequence:

 

Ring of Fire II
1635: The Cannon Law
1635: The Dreeson Incident

 

The time frame involved here is by no means rigidly sequential, and there are plenty of complexities involved. To name just one, my story in the second Ring of Fire anthology, the short novel “The Austro-Hungarian Connection,” is simultaneously a sequel to Virginia’s story in the same anthology, several stories in various issues of the Gazette — as well as my short novel in the first Ring of Fire anthology, The Wallenstein Gambit.

 

What can I say? It’s a messy world — as is the real one. Still and all, I think the reading order recommended above is certainly as good as any and probably the best.

We come now to Virginia DeMarce’s 1635: The Tangled Web, a collection of inter-related stories that runs parallel to many of the episodes in 1635: The Dreeson Incident. This volume is also where the character of Tata who figures in Eastern Front and Saxon Uprising is first introduced in the series.

 

You should then backtrack a little and read 1635: The Papal Stakes, which is the direct sequel to 1635: The Cannon Law.

 

You can then go back to the “main line” of the series and read 1635: The Eastern Front and 1636: The Saxon Uprising. I strongly recommend reading them back to back. These two books were originally intended to be a single novel, which I wound up breaking in half because the story got too long. They read better in tandem.

 

Then, read Ring of Fire III. My story in that volume is directly connected to 1636: The Saxon Uprising and will lay some of the basis for the sequel to that novel. After that, read 1636: The Kremlin Games. That novel isn’t closely related to any other novel that has yet come out in the series, though, so you could read it almost any time after reading the first few volumes.

 

1636: Commander Cantrell in the West Indies picks up on the adventures of Eddie Cantrell following the events depicted in 1634: The Baltic War.

1636: The Cardinal Virtues depicts the opening of the French civil war which was also produced by the events related in The Baltic War and which has been foreshadowed in a number of stories following that novel.

 

Iver Cooper’s 1636: Seas of Fortune takes place in the Far East and in the New World. The portion of it titled “Stretching Out” may have some spoilers to Commander Cantrell in the West Indies and vice versa, but nothing too important.

1636: The Devil’s Opera takes place in Magdeburg and might have some spoilers if you haven’t read Saxon Uprising. My co-author on this novel, David Carrico, also has an e-book available titled 1635: Music and Murder which contains stories published in various anthologies that provide much of the background to The Devil’s Opera.

1636: The Viennese Waltz comes after Saxon Uprising in the sense that nothing in it will be spoiled by anything in Saxon Uprising but you might find out Mike’s whereabouts early if you read it first. On the other hand the e-book 1636: The Barbie Consortium is a direct prequel to Viennese Waltz and should be read first to introduce you to the young ladies dancing the Viennese Waltz.

 

1636: The Viennese Waltz is also one of the three immediate prequels to the next main line novel in the series, which is 1636: The Ottoman Onslaught. The book is scheduled for publication in January of 2017—a year from now—and, as is true with most of the main line novels, I’m the sole author. If you’re wondering, the other two immediate prequels are 1636: The Saxon Uprising and my short novel “Four Days on the Danube,” which was published in Ring of Fire III.

 

As long as I’m foreshadowing titles that’ll be published in 2016, the next volumes coming out after 1635: Parcel of Rogues are these two:

Ring of Fire IV (forthcoming May, 2016). There are a number of stories in this volume written by different authors including David Brin. From the standpoint of the series’ reading order, however, probably the most important is my own story “Scarface.” This short novel serves simultaneously as a sequel to The Papal Stakes and The Dreeson Incident, in that the story depicts the further adventures of Harry Lefferts after Papal Stakes and Ron Stone and Missy Jenkins following The Dreeson Incident.

1636: The Chronicles of Dr. Gribbleflotz, by Kerryn Offord and Rick Boatright (forthcoming August, 2016). As with The Devil’s Opera, this is a story set in the middle of the United States of Europe as it evolves. In this case, relating the adventures of a seventeenth century scholar—a descendant of the great Paracelsus—who becomes wealthy by translating the fuzzy and erroneous American notions of “chemistry” into the scientific precision of alchemy.

 

That leaves the various issues of the Gazette, which are really hard to fit into any precise sequence. The truth is, you can read them pretty much any time you choose.

It would be well-nigh impossible for me to provide any usable framework for the sixty-three electronic issues of the magazine, so I will restrict myself simply to the seven volumes of the Gazette which have appeared in paper editions. With the caveat that there is plenty of latitude, I’d suggest reading them as follows:

Read Gazette I after you’ve read 1632 and alongside Ring of Fire. Read Gazettes II and III alongside 1633 and 1634: The Baltic War, whenever you’re in the mood for short fiction. Do the same for Gazette IV, alongside the next three books in the sequence, 1634: The Ram Rebellion, 1634: The Galileo Affair and 1634: The Bavarian Crisis. Then read Gazette V after you’ve read Ring of Fire II, since my story in Gazette V is something of a direct sequel to my story in the Ring of Fire volume. You can read Gazette V alongside 1635: The Cannon Law and 1635: The Dreeson Incident whenever you’re in the mood for short fiction. Gazette VI can be read along with the next batch of novels recommended.

 

Finally, I’d recommend reading the most recent Gazette volume—that’s Grantville Gazette VII, published in April of 2015—any time after you’ve read 1636: The Cardinal Virtues.

 

And . . . that’s it, as of now. There are a lot more volumes coming

.

Summary:

For those of you who dote on lists, here it is. But do keep in mind, when you examine this neatly ordered sequence, that the map is not the territory. On the other hand, if you like maps, here’s a flowchart, color coded to show which book is related to what. (Click on the small image for a full sized one, or visit it on gliffy.com for an interactive viewer.) That’s followed by the text version.

 

 

Reading order list:

1632
Ring of Fire
1633
1634: The Baltic War

 

(Somewhere along the way, after you’ve finished 1632, read the stories and articles in the first three paper edition volumes of the Gazette.)

 

1634: The Ram Rebellion
1634: The Galileo Affair
1634: The Bavarian Crisis
1635: A Parcel of Rogues

(Somewhere along the way, read the stories and articles in the fourth paper edition volume of the Gazette.)

 

Ring of Fire II
1635: The Cannon Law
1635: The Dreeson Incident
1635: The Tangled Web (by Virginia DeMarce)

(Somewhere along the way, read the stories in Gazette V.)

 

1635: The Papal Stakes
1635: The Eastern Front
1636: The Saxon Uprising
Ring of Fire III
1636: The Kremlin Games

 

(Somewhere along the way, read the stories in Gazette VI.)

 

1636: Commander Cantrell in the West Indies
1636: The Cardinal Virtues
1635: Music and Murder (by David Carrico—this is an e-book edition only)
1636: The Devil’s Opera
1636: Seas of Fortune (by Iver Cooper)
1636: The Barbie Consortium (by Gorg Huff and Paula Goodlett—this is an e-book edition only)
1636: The Viennese Waltz

 

(Somewhere along the way, read the stories in Gazette VII.)

 

And that leaves the following volumes, which will be appearing over the course of the next year:

Ring of Fire IV (forthcoming May, 2016)
1636: The Chronicles of Dr. Gribbleflotz (forthcoming August, 2016)
1636: The Ottoman Onslaught (forthcoming January, 2017)

 

[Hurlshort]

That really makes me not want to start that series.

[Raithe]

That really makes me not want to start that series.

 

It's actually a really good series , with a lot of well done history behind it.

You don't actually need to delve into all of it to quite that extreme either.

[Raithe]

io9 - Take a peek inside Neil Gaiman's library

[Volourn]

"That really makes me not want to start that series."

 

Same. It makes it sound/look like gibberish. L0L

[Elerond]

Grand Jury Investigating Planned Parenthood Indicts Makers Of Videos Instead

 

"Instead Of Indicting Planned Parenthood, Texas Grand Jury Indicts Creators Of Highly Edited Videos

 

A Texas grand jury that was investigating Planned Parenthood just opted to not indict the women's reproductive health care provider. Instead, it has handed down indictments for two of the makers of the controversial videos.

 

David Daleiden (photo), the founder of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), an anti-choice group that worked with Republican members of Congress for over a year to create the videos and create a marketing plan to release them, and another activist, have been indicted.

 

"Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count of related to purchasing human organs. Another activist was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record," the Associated Press just reported.

 

The second person indicted is Sandra Merritt, also of the CMP. Merritt is also "the founder and CEO of BioMax, the sham tissue procurement company created by the Center to gain entry into abortion clinics and medical conferences," the Dallas Morning News adds.

 

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson "said the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing."

 

The videos are highly and selectively edited, and have been used as "evidence" by anti-abortion activists and anti-choice conservatives to fraudulently claim "Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts."

 

Every state that has investigated Planned Parenthood in response to the videos has found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood."

 

But at least Texas' governor is willing to spent even more tax payers money to ensure that case, which is multiple time decided to have no merit by different investigative, legal and governmental bodies will continued to be investigated even after this latest unfortunately set back with Grand Jury or something like that what financially conservative politicians always do in these cases https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/691755304606900224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw 

[Hurlshort]

Well that is simply awesome.

[Volourn]

Eh. Both sids are scum. One side supports god who is a child murderer and the other supports murdering babies.. oops.. 'embryos'. L0L

[Gfted1]

21 Must-See Google Street View Locations That Aren't Streets.

[kirottu]

CIA: "take a peek into our x-files." Edited January 27, 2016 by kirottu

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLBWu3LteIQ

[ShadySands]

Which conspiracy theories are mathematically impossible?

[kirottu]

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

Benjamin Franklin

[Gromnir]

Which conspiracy theories are mathematically impossible?

am thinking the research hurt itself by including global warming.  much like debate over the flatness of earth, there were pretty darn compelling scientific evidence that the earth were roughly spherical as 'posed to being carried 'pon the back o' an enormous turtle... or whatever.  the thing is, many folks refused to accept the science or were more convinced by the notion o' four elephants and a turtle supporting terra firma.  is not that the scientists were active trying to hide the truth from folks.  actual educated folks knew truth and tried to educate their peers for centuries. were no conspiracy (edit: well, the Church mighta been indulging in conspiracy, but even after they relinquished, folks still held to flat earth beliefs.) quite the contrary.

 

also, given how dismissive we is of most conspiracy nut jobs, and the russian media, we hate to bring up tobacco dangers as an alternative.  the tobacco industry did a pretty impressive job o' keeping their secret, and is not like vw and their emission shenanigans were exposed 'cause folks inside vw couldn't keep a secret.  tobacco's dirty and deadly secret were effective kept for decades.  tobacco industry knew o' dangers but pretended otherwise. vw were caught much quicker than tobacco industry, but again, the secret were successful kept by vw while 3rd parties independent discovered the malfeasance.  

 

*shrug*

 

am general in agreement that large conspiracies is mighty unlikely.  nevertheless, there is evidence that such stuff is possible.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 27, 2016 by Gromnir