Do conspiracy theorists ever realize how ridiculous/insensitive their ideas are?
You are talking as if “ridiculous/insensitive” are actually correct assessment of the positions of all kinds of conspiracy cases; they're not always “ridiculous/insensitive” points of view. But, yes, some people take them that way.Remember, theory means explanation, so: a conspiracy (collusion, or group bias having consequences) can be the explanation for many things. They include * admitted * and * not admitted * event causes. When a bigot won't admit their side has been wrong or awful, the other side enters into naming it conspiracy. And rightly so. And when a cop or historian forms a working plan for judging a plot or tendency in a group, for a legal crime or something less definite, they engage in theory about an actual conspiracy or postulate of conspiracy.So, back to your question: what is “offense” or “ridiculous” about conspiracy theories? Not much, except that someone else suspects something went on which:is sightly or greatly different from a single person involved (a non conspiracy based on number of persons), as with the dismantled lone shooter official story of JFK's assassination. This, by the way, is why “conspiracy” became more and more a despicable term, more than an undesired crime.is more complex but entirely feasible, in fact likely given some informed common sense about the issue, once one has some knowledge about spy and elitist rings of influence.Not that all cases are * correct *, but most are, because history doesn't change, collusion and big power are always with us; only the ignorance of the modern public as distinct from, say, the Renaissance, about how they can be tricked and other people die for the tricks has changed.Finally, is it ever offensive to ask if someone was involved in a crime? It can feel so. But in a cover up, posited by police or average citizens, no, it's not offensive intellectual effort to say so. Wrong, or superficially ridiculous looking but right, or just obviously right, it's not offensive intellectual effort to make sure of what really happened.
9/11 conspiracy theroy?
To those who think that 9/11 was an inside job I have a question for you to answer!!! I personally don't believe that this was the case, I think that Terrorist planned this and carried it out! But theroretically speaking lets say you are right and there are other factors involoved showing that 9/11 was planned by our government, I hear a lot of you pointing the finger at our President George Bush. My question is how can you accuse him of something or place blame without knowing all the facts? How do you know it's not someone from your party? Why does it automatically have to be George Bush who planned this? Clinton knew of these terroist attacks being planned 5 years prior to Bush being elected. So could it possibly be Bill Clinton who planned this and carried them out? Perhaps it's all a plot to demonize the Republican party so his wife could advance her popularity in this election? Just throwing some idea's out here.. because no evidence shows who could have been behind this!!!
State the converse to Euclid's 5th Postulate. Prove this converse as a theorem in Neutral geometry.?
Even if somebody could just help me with the converse I could probably go from there. The converse I need is Playfair's presentation of the 5th postulate. So "For every line l and for every point P that does not lie on l there exists a unique line m through P that is parallel to l." Im having trouble trying to find where to split the statement and swap the wording. Any info on how to do the proof would be great, as well. Thanks!
How exactly does a conspiracy theory work? Are there any justifiable theories?
Taken from Build Your Own Conspiracy Theory, at The Skeptical Libertarian Blog:Pick bad thing X that happened (it doesn't matter what or when).Postulate a conspiracy was behind it* (it doesn't matter who or why). This is all you need to get going, but there are a few techniques you can use to fill in the blanks about what really happened during X.Ahh, now I see–George Bush did it.Cherry pick factoids, take details out of context, mine quotes from public figures, elevate obscure minor incidents to center stage, juxtapose unrelated events, obsess over coincidence, point to suspicious lack of evidence that (if it existed) would support your theory, and always, always have pictures with big red arrows pointing to nothing in particular.The general rule is: stitch together everything that vaguely supports your theory or calls into question the mainstream explanation, and ignore or deny everything that does not fit.In later stages, once your campaign to uncover the truth is well-developed, create a really poorly-produced internet “documentary,” set it to scary music, and have your college roommate narrate it.Denounce skeptics and scientists who debunk your claims as tools of the conspiracy, and make it clear that anyone who doubts your theory is a Moreaun human-sheep hybrid creature afflicted with narcolepsy. Tell them they need to, “Wake UP, SHEEPLE!”Compile a list of a tiny number of “experts” that support some of your claims, and use it to lend a veneer of scientific credibility to your theory. Wherever possible, use misattributed, unsourced, and quotes taken out of context from experts who do not support your theory to imply they do.Create lists of “unanswered questions” that, regardless of how well-answered, will always remain “unanswered.”* Or, if a conspiracy really was behind it, add some unnecessary elements or another layer of conspiracy on top of what is generally accepted to have happened, just to blunt Occam’s Razor. For example: the Black Hand really did assassinate Archduke Ferdinand… but there was a second shooter on the roof of the cafe! Or: yeah, Mohammad Atta did it… but the CIA helped him!This might also interest you:Conspiracy theoryHow Conspiracy Theories Work - HowStuffWorksHOW TO MAKE SENSE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Computer Theory: NFA "useless" states question?
A "useless" state (q in this case) is defined as: (there doesn’t exist a string taking N from a start state to q), or (there doesn’t exist a string taking N from q to a final state). Part 1 ask: Can we remove all useless states from any NFA without changing the language that it accepts? Justify your answer. I was thinking that it would affect the language it accepts. Like if you were testing if a string was empty, q would be the start and final state and would only transition if it read any input. That would satisfy the conditions above. ->q(final) ------- (any input) ----- x (which loops back to itself with any input) Need confirmation with this logic. Also, part 2 asks: If we want to remove useless states, we notice that the definition of a useless state involves testing for an infinite set of strings, (Sigma)*. Describe a finite time algorithm to test if q is useless. I don't really know where to start with this part, but I think it may have something to do with the pumping limit and its variable k ( the number of states). I don't think the algorithm can loop at all. Thanks for any help!
How does the theory of evolution explain why people dispensed with rationality so they can believe things without evidence?
“How does the theory of evolution explain why people dispensed with rationality so they can believe things without evidence?”Human selective advantage rests heavily in the capacity of human beings to work and think together to address challenges. In other words, a lot of human evolution arises out of our thinking through challenges together.Shared ideas are a key to people working together. It doesn’t matter very much whether the idea is true, what matters is the extent to which the idea can help people work and live together.The best ideas for helping people to work together are those that hold together in a coherent story. That’s why science was not a good set of ideas to help people to work together until quite recently. The findings of science were too disconnected compared to the myths that were helping people to live together productively.Even now, relatively few people have sufficient understanding of science for it to constitute a useful shared narrative. That’s why so many questions on Quora are based around the narratives of the Bible, or the Quran, or on rather messy agglomerations of scientific findings, simplistic misinterpretations of scientifically-derived concepts (such as “theory” and “evolution”) and fantasies such as “alien” visitations and various conspiracy ideas.(I should stress that not all ideas about conspiracies are wrong but the nature of conspiracies makes it largely impossible to be certain which are correct and which are not. They may help people to work together but that does not mean that they are correct).Sharing ideas and working together is much more important to human survival than is the rationality or “objective truth” of the ideas people believe.