Skip to main content

The Science They Don't Want You to Know



I am currently working on a YouTube project called "The Science They Don't Want You to Know", where I will cover science that various organizations and individuals don't want to be known by the general population for one reason or another.  It will be set up in seasons, since there are so many related topics to consider.

The first season will cover conspiracy theories which affect public health.  In it, I will run be dependent on two papers, one which revolves around the mathematics of known conspiracies, and the other which describes the psychology of conspiracy theorists.  The math paper, which is written by Professor David Grimes of the University of Oxford, looks at various conspiracies which have been leaked to the public.  Examples of this include the NSA spying on us, the old syphilis "experiments", and Watergate.  What he did was to use these known cases of conspiracies to develop a model for figuring out what the probability would be for a leak per person involved per year, and applied that model to current conspiracy beliefs, such as global climate change and the vaccines-cause-autism hypothesis.

Fear the needles!
I will endeavor to extend on Grimes' work by incorporating more conspiracy theories which we know happened in the past in order to get better statistical analysis for potential conspiracies going on now.  Since this is a mathematical endeavor, it is something which a spreadsheet is a good tool for the analysis.  With this in mind, I am working with this in Google Sheets, and you can see my logic and progress here.  The first substantive video will look over the specific math to figure out the value for the per-person-per-year probability from the known cases to be applied unknown cases, for which one video will cover one conspiracy theory.

The psychology paper is an experimental method for determining what kind of personality prompts a belief in conspiracies.  What they did was to provide surveys to people in order to determine how confident they are in their own self-worth, confidence in the governments ability to conspire against the masses, and confidence in the governments willingness to do so.  What these researchers have found is that there are two factors which typically prompts conspiratorial beliefs; individual narcissism and "negative" self esteem, namely poor opinion of oneself.  Basically, one has to be down on themselves and have a high self-importance.

This doesn't make sense that any individual would have these two traits at the same time; it didn't to me either.  Then I realized that this is equivalent to low self worth relative to government and corporations and low opinion of government and corporate entities when it comes to conspiracies.

The lizards are coming to enslave us all!
We are powerless against them!
So with this in mind, another element I will look at is those who believe these conspiracies, and if they show the low self esteem and high narcissism to fall into the conspiracy theorist group.  This will determine if they are merely paranoid or if they're on to something real, regardless of how close to reality the conspiracy as a whole is.

The season will open with a top ten revealed conspiracy video, a top ten unconfirmed conspiracy video, the video figuring out the math behind the the known conspiracies, and then one video per unknown conspiracy which would have an impact on public health.  I will also post one blog per conspiracy which I have sufficiently finished researched for this season.

So until next time, take that as you will.
K. "Alan" Eister Î”αβ

Relevant Entries:
First
Previous
Labels:
Location: 4505 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Basic Statistics Lecture #3: Normal, Binomial, and Poisson Distributions

As I have mentioned last time , the uniform continuous distribution is not the only form of continuous distribution in statistics.  As promised, here are the three most common continuous distribution types.  As a side note, all sampling distributions are relative to the algebraic mean. Normal Distribution: I think most people are familiar with the concept of a normal distribution.  If you've ever seen a bell curve, you've seen the normal distribution.  If you've begun from the first lecture of this lecture series, you've also seen the normal distribution. This type of distribution is where the data points follow a continuous curve, is non-uniform, has a mean (algebraic average) equal to the median (the exact middle value), falls from highest probability at the mean to (for all practical purposes) zero as the x-values approach $\pm \infty$, and therefor has equal number of data points to the left and to the right of the mean, and has the domain of $(\pm \i
1 comment
Read more

Confidence Interval: Basic Statistics Lecture Series Lecture #11

You'll remember last time , I covered hypothesis testing of proportions and the time before that , hypothesis testing of a sample with a mean and standard deviation.  This time, I'll cover the concept of confidence intervals. Confidence intervals are of the form μ 1-α ∈ (a, b) 1-α , where a and b are two numbers such that a<b, α is the significance level as covered in hypothesis testing, and μ is the actual population mean (not the sample mean). This is a the statement of there being a [(1-α)*100]% probability that the true population mean will be somewhere between a and b.  The obvious question is "How do we find a and b?".  Here, I will describe the process. Step 1. Find the Fundamental Statistics The first thing we need to find the fundamental statistics , the mean, standard deviation, and the sample size.  The sample mean is typically referred to as the point estimate by most statistics text books.  This is because the point estimate of the populati
1 comment
Read more

Basic Statistics Lecture #5: Baye's Theorem

As promised last time , I am going to cover Baye's Theorem. If Tree diagram is the common name for Bayes Theorem.  Recall that conditional probability is given by $P(A \mid B) = \frac{P(A \wedge B)}{P(B)}$.   For tree diagrams, let's say that we have events A, B 1 , B 2 , B 3 , … (the reason we have multiple B's is because they all are within the same family of events) such that the events in the family of B are mutually exclusive and the sum of the probabilities of the events in the family of B are equal to 1. Then we have $$P(B_i \mid A)= \frac{P(B_i)*P(A \mid B_i)}{\sum_{m=1}^{n}[P(B_m)*P(A \mid B_m)]}$$  What this means is reliant on the tree diagram. If we are only looking at the sub-items of A, this is what the tree diagram would look like. If J has a probability of 100%, and P(C) and P(D) are not 0, then when we are trying to find the probability of any of the B's being true given that A is true, we have to set the probability of A to be the entir
Post a Comment
Read more