Are you aware that a number of doctors and scientists criticise the scientific methods used to allow claims by the authorities that there is a global pandemic when, in fact, there is no such thing?
Many people call themselves critical thinkers but I say they aren't because I can see how they are led by their biases rather than by the evidence. It is astounding to me how people will simply ignore plain facts because they don't align with their biases.
I've just published a three-part article, Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid. If you happen to take a look and find anything wrong with it, I'd be interested to know what.
Thanks for asking for some feedback. You are certainly going in the right direction by talking about falsification (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/solar-eclipses-and-q ). It's an important point! Also, asking someone to check your work is very good. Be warned, though: When I criticize your work, it will trigger cognitive dissonance (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/emotions-first). What is your plan for dealing with cognitive dissonance when you read the rest of my answer? Really think about the answer to that question before you read further!
***
Let's just take the moon landing one as a test case. One of the most sophisticated ways of weighing two or more hypotheses involves Bayesian statistics (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/bayesian-statistics). What you have done with the moon landing case is basically give two ideas (fake/real) an equal weighting. I'm sorry, but that has been seen as unsophisticated for hundreds of years. Let's try and work out which hypothesis is more likely first.
You can do some further reading in chapter two of my free book on critical thinking (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7lo6wm5ygx2wsk7/Chapter%20Two%20-%20beta%20version.pdf?dl=0 ). I quote someone who notes that none of "the set designers, the photographers, the props department, the security men, the navy people who pretended to fish the returning spacemen out of the ocean," etc, have tried to sell their stories. Why not?
If you look at the history of the conspiracy theory, you will see that only around 4% of the US population doubted the moon landings at the time. The theory only became widely believed in the 1970s after a film was released showing the landing was supposedly faked. Fox News then supercharged the conspiracy theory in 2001 by showing a documentary that was widely slated by experts as being very weak.
So, if you are approaching this as a Bayesian, you have to set a very low probability that the moon landings were faked. Nobody has betrayed the alleged plot; and the conspiracy theory has been driven by films rather than research.
So, my advice is to think about harder about your methodology and also to be more reflective about why conspiracy theoris are appealing to you. This is hard, uncomfortable work. The results are much better, though.
If you want to know my credentials, by the way, I have worked as a full-time investigative journalist for 20 years, specializing in finance. If I consistently got things wrong, my readers would lose money. I also have a degree in philosophy and did a dissertation on reflective practice for news reporters as part of an MA on media management. As a big geek, I read roughly 100 non-fiction books a year and have done for decades.
Best regards,
Rupert
PS. I'm not really interested in entering a long debate. If you want me to recommend more reading material to help improve your methodology, please shout.
You asked me to comment on https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-the-moon-landings. I clicked through to the other ones. You had a long passage on someone being an "agent" or "controlled opposition." It seems clear to me that you need to think harder about your methodology. The Bayesian approach will help you avoid making such strange assumptions in future. I also refer you to the joke about no project manager ever becoming a conspiracy theorist.
Also, my name is Rupert. Basic spelling mistakes are a big, red flag that someone isn't doing good research.
My apologies, Rupert. I simply read your name as Robert.
Strange assumptions? But why do you say it's a strange assumption to call Bill Kaysing an agent. He makes no sense. No one who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would have said what he said about the moon landings and a nephew called Dietrich von Schmausen who's an alien scientist? Assumption? You've got to be kidding. He's just so obvious.
Rupert, what do you know about controlled opposition? What I present will be completely alien to you. You will need to do more than simply "click through" if you wish to understand what I'm saying - you don't have to, of course, but "clicking through" won't be sufficient to understand.
No need to apologize! Let's try a thought experiment. Which of these two scenarios is more likely?
1) Bill Kaysing was a bit of a nutter, who believed lots of conspiracy theories. in 1976, he self-published a book making strange claims about the moon landings long before they became fashionable. The evidence was thin, to put it politely. But, hey, it's a free world and there are lots of strange people out there!
2) It is 1976. Afghanistan has yet to be invaded by the Soviets. Saddam Hussein was just coming to power in Iraq. The World Trade Center is just three years ago. A shadowy elite comes up with a convoluted plan...
"Right, let's encourage the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. We will then help the Americans back the Islamist opposition. The opposition will win and will then radicalize after the Americans lose interest. The Soviet Union will fall. Iraq will fight a long war with Iran, which will run to a standstill. We'll make the US Ambassador the UN, this guy called Bush, President, but only for one term. Then we'll get one of his kids to take over eventually. When everything is in place, we'll get a bunch of Saudis to fly bombs into the World Trade Centre. Bush's son will use it to declare war on Iraq."
"Why Iraq? Wouldn't it be better to fill the plane with Iraqis."
"Oh, it won't matter that much!"
"Won't people realize we've been plotting this since the 1970s?"
"Hm, good point! Maybe we need to discredit conspiracy theorists. Let's plant an agent to say that the moon landings were faked. When people see throught that, it will discredit future conspiracy theories."
Rupert, the reason that I'm drawn to psyops is that they TELL US they're responsible (it's called "revelation of the method" / "hidden in plain sight") although this clarity is something I realised in hindsight not when I first started looking at them. I must admit that generally speaking I'm pretty clueless when it comes to history and politics. I can't really get my head around lots of stuff but psyops have a very distinctive MO and the truth is generally laid out very clearly underneath the propaganda so that's what draws me to them. I never cease to marvel at how they push things out so clearly "hidden in plain sight" style and yet so few catch on. How propaganda works so seemingly counterintuitively in that way is truly a marvel.
So you put forward I made a "strange assumption" about Bill Kaysing being an agent. Can you explain how he fits being a genuine Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne?
Are you aware that a number of doctors and scientists criticise the scientific methods used to allow claims by the authorities that there is a global pandemic when, in fact, there is no such thing?
Many people call themselves critical thinkers but I say they aren't because I can see how they are led by their biases rather than by the evidence. It is astounding to me how people will simply ignore plain facts because they don't align with their biases.
I've just published a three-part article, Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid. If you happen to take a look and find anything wrong with it, I'd be interested to know what.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-the-moon-landings
Hi Petra,
Thanks for asking for some feedback. You are certainly going in the right direction by talking about falsification (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/solar-eclipses-and-q ). It's an important point! Also, asking someone to check your work is very good. Be warned, though: When I criticize your work, it will trigger cognitive dissonance (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/emotions-first). What is your plan for dealing with cognitive dissonance when you read the rest of my answer? Really think about the answer to that question before you read further!
***
Let's just take the moon landing one as a test case. One of the most sophisticated ways of weighing two or more hypotheses involves Bayesian statistics (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/bayesian-statistics). What you have done with the moon landing case is basically give two ideas (fake/real) an equal weighting. I'm sorry, but that has been seen as unsophisticated for hundreds of years. Let's try and work out which hypothesis is more likely first.
The prisoner's dilemma is a great tool for this (https://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Dilemma-Neumann-Theory-Puzzle-ebook/dp/B004KPM1GM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1Q074887PTWP1&keywords=prisoner%27s+dilemma+william+poundstone&qid=1662471067&sprefix=prisoner%27s+dilemma%2Caps%2C2281&sr=8-1). This is the idea that any conspiracy will be unstable if people can gain something by betraying it. In the case of the moon landings. nobody has ever come forward to betray the plot!
You can do some further reading in chapter two of my free book on critical thinking (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7lo6wm5ygx2wsk7/Chapter%20Two%20-%20beta%20version.pdf?dl=0 ). I quote someone who notes that none of "the set designers, the photographers, the props department, the security men, the navy people who pretended to fish the returning spacemen out of the ocean," etc, have tried to sell their stories. Why not?
If you look at the history of the conspiracy theory, you will see that only around 4% of the US population doubted the moon landings at the time. The theory only became widely believed in the 1970s after a film was released showing the landing was supposedly faked. Fox News then supercharged the conspiracy theory in 2001 by showing a documentary that was widely slated by experts as being very weak.
So, if you are approaching this as a Bayesian, you have to set a very low probability that the moon landings were faked. Nobody has betrayed the alleged plot; and the conspiracy theory has been driven by films rather than research.
This might feel strange to you. It is time to look at psychology. The human brain is primed to see causality and patterns in randomness. Think of our ancestors seeing animals in the stars. We love big, sweeping explanations, even if they turn out to be completely wrong, like believing that shadowy elites control the brains of ordinary people. If you want to look into this, I recommend Brotherton's excellent book (https://www.amazon.com/Suspicious-Minds-Believe-Conspiracy-Theories-ebook/dp/B00ZFZC5X0/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=suspicious+minds+rob+brotherton&qid=1662471686&sprefix=brotherton+susp%2Caps%2C268&sr=8-1).
So, my advice is to think about harder about your methodology and also to be more reflective about why conspiracy theoris are appealing to you. This is hard, uncomfortable work. The results are much better, though.
If you want to know my credentials, by the way, I have worked as a full-time investigative journalist for 20 years, specializing in finance. If I consistently got things wrong, my readers would lose money. I also have a degree in philosophy and did a dissertation on reflective practice for news reporters as part of an MA on media management. As a big geek, I read roughly 100 non-fiction books a year and have done for decades.
Best regards,
Rupert
PS. I'm not really interested in entering a long debate. If you want me to recommend more reading material to help improve your methodology, please shout.
I'm not sure what your argument is Robert. I recognise the astonishing achievement of the moon landings. Why do you assume I don't?
Hi Petra,
You asked me to comment on https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-the-moon-landings. I clicked through to the other ones. You had a long passage on someone being an "agent" or "controlled opposition." It seems clear to me that you need to think harder about your methodology. The Bayesian approach will help you avoid making such strange assumptions in future. I also refer you to the joke about no project manager ever becoming a conspiracy theorist.
Also, my name is Rupert. Basic spelling mistakes are a big, red flag that someone isn't doing good research.
My apologies, Rupert. I simply read your name as Robert.
Strange assumptions? But why do you say it's a strange assumption to call Bill Kaysing an agent. He makes no sense. No one who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would have said what he said about the moon landings and a nephew called Dietrich von Schmausen who's an alien scientist? Assumption? You've got to be kidding. He's just so obvious.
Rupert, what do you know about controlled opposition? What I present will be completely alien to you. You will need to do more than simply "click through" if you wish to understand what I'm saying - you don't have to, of course, but "clicking through" won't be sufficient to understand.
No need to apologize! Let's try a thought experiment. Which of these two scenarios is more likely?
1) Bill Kaysing was a bit of a nutter, who believed lots of conspiracy theories. in 1976, he self-published a book making strange claims about the moon landings long before they became fashionable. The evidence was thin, to put it politely. But, hey, it's a free world and there are lots of strange people out there!
2) It is 1976. Afghanistan has yet to be invaded by the Soviets. Saddam Hussein was just coming to power in Iraq. The World Trade Center is just three years ago. A shadowy elite comes up with a convoluted plan...
"Right, let's encourage the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. We will then help the Americans back the Islamist opposition. The opposition will win and will then radicalize after the Americans lose interest. The Soviet Union will fall. Iraq will fight a long war with Iran, which will run to a standstill. We'll make the US Ambassador the UN, this guy called Bush, President, but only for one term. Then we'll get one of his kids to take over eventually. When everything is in place, we'll get a bunch of Saudis to fly bombs into the World Trade Centre. Bush's son will use it to declare war on Iraq."
"Why Iraq? Wouldn't it be better to fill the plane with Iraqis."
"Oh, it won't matter that much!"
"Won't people realize we've been plotting this since the 1970s?"
"Hm, good point! Maybe we need to discredit conspiracy theorists. Let's plant an agent to say that the moon landings were faked. When people see throught that, it will discredit future conspiracy theories."
"Good thinking!"
Rupert, the reason that I'm drawn to psyops is that they TELL US they're responsible (it's called "revelation of the method" / "hidden in plain sight") although this clarity is something I realised in hindsight not when I first started looking at them. I must admit that generally speaking I'm pretty clueless when it comes to history and politics. I can't really get my head around lots of stuff but psyops have a very distinctive MO and the truth is generally laid out very clearly underneath the propaganda so that's what draws me to them. I never cease to marvel at how they push things out so clearly "hidden in plain sight" style and yet so few catch on. How propaganda works so seemingly counterintuitively in that way is truly a marvel.
So you put forward I made a "strange assumption" about Bill Kaysing being an agent. Can you explain how he fits being a genuine Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne?