PowerSwitch

Whenever I try to talk to my friends or family about peakoil and its consequences they seem to think I have become a conspiracy theorist... (I must admit...when my partner enlightened me about peakoil I accused him of being one too)

Is it just me?? Or are we all conspirary theorists on here? )

Any rational person understands the fact that peak oil will happen (apart from those abiotics out there). The difference in views come about due to the 'when' factor. If your friends think it will be a long way off then get them to explain why - and see if they think we will be more oil dependent by the time it does happen or less.

To truly understand why it is rational that this isn't talked, i.e. expected rather than a conspiracy, people need to understand the workings of corporations, the workings and motivations of government, human nature, the workings of the media and science. Quite a lot to grasp and if you don't then it will sound like a bit of a conspiracy theory.

I've been accused (in a friendly way) of being part of a doomsday cult

In fact, I sometimes even ask people if they'd like to join my doomsday cult (as a bit of a joke) - it gets it out in the open, we laugh, and then the discussion can move on to the real issues.

OK i've decided to research in to Conspiracy now, to gain info about Peak Oil and how the Goverment may try to cut the population down to put off PO.

Am I setting myself up for ridicule? Or if I look but don't talk, will I be fine?

Incidently in my travels i've come across this short:
http://sacredearth.org/WWWIII.html

The sounds a little low, so you'll need to turn up the speakers. Also its not a full length rip.

wayne72 wrote:OK i've decided to research in to Conspiracy now, to gain info about Peak Oil and how the Goverment may try to cut the population down to put off PO.

I friendly word of warning, tread carefully when exploring the wild woods, it is incredibly easy to slip into the world of the conspiracy theorists. Very few people have a firm enough grip on their own reality to survive prolonged immersion in the world of conspiracy theorists. Some of the seemingly wayout theories seem to operate like a communicable psychosis, you have to let a little bit of into your brain to understand where they are coming from and before you know it it's moved in and redecorated your reality tunnel.

People don't like anything that is not fed to them from official means - TV news, newspapers, the government. Essentially, human beings are quite stupid. A friend of mine actually believes that the majority of people are asleep most of the time, even when they are at work. I kind of agree. Anything that makes them think will cause them to rouse from their slumber and for many that is not what is wanted.

As Frank Zappa, the composer, once said:

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."

What is important is that you know about and believe in PO and whatever else you feel is important. Without your own convictions you stand little chance of convincing those who might want to listen and they are out there.

As for conspiracies, well the best conspracy theory in the world is the one we were told about in the days after 9/11 by the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden and several other Middle Eastern men conspired to destroy the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. People might not like conspiracy theories but the official story of 9/11 is exactly one in itself and a bad one at that, although when I tell people of this fact they look at me blankly (probably because I'm not on TV!).

fromthemiddleofnowhere wrote: Is it just me?? Or are we all conspirary theorists on here? )

Hi,
Actualy it is quite simple. There are so many people whom if you tell that
inspite of years of research it is better to drink herbal tee than take chemiotherapy thay
will do it, with usualy disasterous consequences. But if you tell them something
unconfortable something disturbing thay are going to object however well grounded
your point is. Just try to sell them PO as something positive, something to look
forward then it will work. I wonder to how many people here this theory applyes.
Perhaps most of PowerSwitchers is so feed up with this society that thay tend to beleve
in PO cause it is the end of it as we know now? Or mayby it comforts tham in
some othr way.

I don't want to offend anybody, the same reasoning applyes to me. I beleve in PO
coming relatively soon, so it is as vital for me to answer this question as
perhaps it is to some of you.

Lukasz

wayne72 wrote:OK i've decided to research in to Conspiracy now, to gain info about Peak Oil and how the Goverment may try to cut the population down to put off PO.

Am I setting myself up for ridicule? Or if I look but don't talk, will I be fine?

A little knowledge of human psychology is useful before jumping in. The human mind is equipped with an incredibly, some would say overly sensitive pattern recognition capability. This is a basic survival mechanism which evolution has equipped us with. Is that a tiger under the tree or just an odd shaped shadow? A very important question for any hominid unequipped with a rifle...

The mind that takes time to carefully analyse the situation and come to the correct conclusion, will , 50% of the time, get eaten by the tiger while doing so.

The mind that rapidly recognises a 'tiger' pattern in the shape of the shadow - jumps to a conclusion on the basis of partial evidence , and runs away even when there is no tiger, will live to procreate another day...

And the moral is - its very easy to 'see' patterns in random data. We do, especially, have a tendency to see danger where none exists. The evolutionary 'better safe than sorry' principle that is programmed into all of us. Effectively we are all unconsciously biased to see what we are looking for even when it does not exist.

This I think happens a lot with conspiracy theorists when they are 'connecting the dots' . They know what they are looking for and end up constructing the picture out of noise, discarding or downgrading all contrary data. The guvmint is evil... thats a given, so all the bad stuff MUST be a result of a guvmint conspiracy. They tend then to work by accumulating a mountain of circumstantial evidence which supports the conclusion they have already jumped to, ignoring any evidence which contradicts or blows a hole in it. At first sight this mountain of evidence can be very impressive...until one starts to consider the alternatives

Learn to recognise your own biases. It's not easy to do at all. I find that I'm constantly saying " Is that real or is that just me?" (lol. even skeptical about my own ability to think straight!)

The most useful tool to take with you on any trip to Planet Conspiracy is Occams Razor. When considering any set of data, the simplest theory which can explain all the data is most likely to be true. (Note: Its does not prove that it is true). This is simply a tried and trusted method for ordering the theories on offer. I like to then falsify from the bottom up - blow a hole in the most complex explanation and discard it.

DO I believe in conspiracies? Yes of course, its a normal human method of doing business. Even male and female monkeys have been shown to conspire (secretly communicate) in order to arrange a F--k behind the alpha males back. Groups planning secretly to achieve an advantage over other groups is normal. Its what commercial organisations do all the time. When the methods they are contemplating are illegal then that is said to be a conspiracy.

The only conspiracies which generally work well though are those that are limited in scope - a small number of highly motivated and similarly minded people with a specific time limited objective. Thats why I dont believe in big conspiracies like the multi generational 'sekrit roolers of the universe' nonsense. Individuals objectives can change over the long term, and most people are natural blabbermouths. Solid evidence of large conspiracies always comes to light, eventually.

"cut the population down to put off PO."

The government has, at the moment. no interest in cutting the population to put off peak oil. To me it is evident that the govt is worried about the population declining of its own accord, and there not being enough young British workers in 30 years time to support an ever aging population. Hence the desire to enlarge the EU to countries where people ( unlike the UK and other more 'mature' EU members) are still interested in producing large numbers of sprogs, and then encouraging them to move to the UK. What would we Londoners do without the Polish building worker? Nothing would ever get done! And I'd never get a Cappucino if it wasnt for all those girls from Riga...

'Growth' is still the New Labour byword of 'Health'. The government collectively does not understand the physical Limits to Growth, as the political class is largely composed of Economists, Lawyers and others of a 'classical' bent. The number of MPs with MSc after their name is a small minority (and I'm guessing a good portion of those are from the voodoo sciences like sociology and psychology) . Their connection to physical reality is hazy to say the least. The govt is not currently interested in 'stability' or 'reduction'.

Current New Labour policy will eventually , reductio ad absurdum, result in the entire land surface of the UK being covered in a solid crush of humanity, with all the odd numbered people breathing out while all the even numbers breathe in. That of course will be an end to it as at that point sex will become impossible.

Politicians only do long term thinking and planning when forced to by public outcry. Generally they are focussed on policy which will win them the next election, and will try to kick anything else into touch with bland reassurance. NOT IN MY TERM OF OFFICE (That's also one of the unspoken functions of the IEA)

..hmm this is turning into a ramble... time for a cuppa. (Darjeeling of course - wonder how much thats going to cost in 20 years time!)

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

This is a very famous quote by Herman Goering during the Nuremberg trials. Reading between the lines he is saying that any lie can be formulated and accepted, even on a mass scale as in this case, especially were a question of people's safety, livelihood and honour is at stake. He is also making the point that what a leader says can be made to be accepted.

There are many conspiracy theories surrounding Hitler for example, one was that he conspired to burn down the Riechstagg in the late 20's in order to propel his party into the forefront of German politics (if he did then it worked). Perhaps if people had listened to those conspiracists, Hitler's rise to power would not have been possible.

Basically, conspiracy theories are a way of presenting alternative evidence which challenges the official story as presented by our leaders. This form of questioning is exactly the same as used in courtrooms across the world to ascertain a person's guilt when on trial. Why therefore do we as people have a probelm with conspiracy theories? Is it because we cannot be bothered to look at the evidence for ourselves? Is it because, as I said earlier, we'd rather just curl up and sleep, rather than have to fight injustice? The fact that 20 million people can watch the frigging X Factor suggests the former. People want to be entertained, not bombarded with reality. As for me, I find reality entertaining, so I enjoy conspiracy theories, some of which I firmly believe in, and I don't think I'm mad for doing so.

skeptik wrote: The most useful tool to take with you on any trip to Planet Conspiracy is Occams Razor. When considering any set of data, the simplest theory which can explain all the data is most likely to be true. (Note: Its does not prove that it is true). This is simply a tried and trusted method for ordering the theories on offer. I like to then falsify from the bottom up - blow a hole in the most complex explanation and discard it.

Actualy it is the point I do not fully share. In the world of often contradicting data it
is very easy to find yourself with theory which actualy is a conspiracy theory. Cause
this explains everything. From the statistical learning theroy this can be seen as sort of
overfitting. The best possible way of making decisions is to weight various teories
with some sort of trust. And take them all into account. I actualy
think that this is what we often do. The only problem is that this doesn't explain the
underlying mechanism. The problem is this trust, it cannot be precisly measured.
Everybody is choosing it in an arbotrary way by himself. There is no good way
how to choose one.

Cheers
Lukasz

lukasz wrote:

skeptik wrote: The most useful tool to take with you on any trip to Planet Conspiracy is Occams Razor. When considering any set of data, the simplest theory which can explain all the data is most likely to be true. (Note: Its does not prove that it is true). This is simply a tried and trusted method for ordering the theories on offer. I like to then falsify from the bottom up - blow a hole in the most complex explanation and discard it.

Actualy it is the point I do not fully share.

I'm sorry, lukasz. Ive read your criticism of my post several times but I cannot understand what you are trying to say or what the problem is that you have with the use of Occams Razor when considering conflicting theories.

If I could understand I would have responded more usefully!

skeptik wrote:Ive read your criticism of my post several times but I cannot understand what you are trying to say or what the problem is that you have with the use of Occams Razor when considering conflicting theories.

Hi Skeptik,

I agree with lukasz here, although I agree that lukasz could shed more light on his argument.

Occams Razor is a poor method for any argument in my opinion and using such a tool to examine evidence is rather a weak way of arriving at a conclusion. What is wrong at just looking at the evidence full stop? Why do we need to use a theoretical tool to help us argue for or against another theory? Also, is it fair or even possible to judge a conspiracy theory by its complexity and how does one decide whether one order of events is more complex than another. For example, lets say a successful businessman is murdered in the street for the ?10 in his wallet and the police start an investigation to capture the killer. On the surface the official story, that is the story that will come out first and be reported in the media, is simple - 'Man murdered in street for ?10'. But as the police investigate they find that this businessman had many enemies and that some of these enemies had conspired to kill him by paying a hitman to carry out his murder. Already the theory becomes more complicated, certainly more complicated than the original story. Both theories satisfy the evidence however, it is therefore necessary to probe much deeper, beyond just satisfying the complexity level.

skeptik wrote:And the moral is - its very easy to 'see' patterns in random data. We do, especially, have a tendency to see danger where none exists. The evolutionary 'better safe than sorry' principle that is programmed into all of us. Effectively we are all unconsciously biased to see what we are looking for even when it does not exist.......This I think happens a lot with conspiracy theorists when they are 'connecting the dots'

Surely the moral is, don't accept any theory until you've seen all the evidence. Stories as presented on TV, radio and in newspapers are nearly always weak because by their very nature we don't see the evidence. So why then should we believe them and discard any alternative theory you might hear on the grapevine? Is it because we are programmed to believe that what our mummy's and daddy's tell us is true and so any story from official sources such as the media must be true also? In that case we shouldn't believe PO because officially it doesn't exist yet. I've certainly not heard any mention of it on the 6 o'clock news.

Conspracy theorists are not different people and shouldn't be regarded as being so. I've seen tons of evidence on conspiracy websites that help explain official events in different ways. On the contrary I've seen very little evidence to support the official stories but I'm expected to believe them because they are presented on telly or in the papers. How crass is that!

The problem with conspracy theories is that no one in officialdom will give them the time of day. They won't be heard in court and they won't get true representaion by the media, because editorial will stick its opinionated nose in. Even sadder is that the public view conspiracy theories as being something only wackos or idiots get involved in. Having read the evidence presented by leading US theologian David Ray Griffin on the problems with the official story of 9/11 I can see no evidence of poor judgement, mental maladjstment or a lack of intelligence in anything he says.

skeptik wrote: I'm sorry, lukasz. Ive read your criticism of my post several times but I cannot understand what you are trying to say or what the problem is that you have with the use of Occams Razor when considering conflicting theories.

If I could understand I would have responded more usefully!

I wouldn't t use the world criticism in this context, as hopefully I will manage to
explain latter I use Occam Razor, but I don't think it is enough.
First of all sorry knowing how doggy my written English is, I should have read my post
before sending it. I will try to explain what I mean on an example of evolution theory. Lets
for a second assume that I am suppose to make up my mind on the evolution theory. I
start reading the two completely contradicting theories of evolutionists and creationism.
There is no easy way to come up with theory explaining this two points of view. I myself
am not going to go and start digging and searching for remains of first humans, I have no
means to do it nor I feel like doing it. But I could do it, I could go and start searching if I
wanted, this is very important for my latter argument.

I have two theories both contradicting. I start assigning some sort of trust two each of
them, I could start comparing the number of papers published, the ranking of journals
and so on but this is pretty cheep approach. If I use Occam Razor I don't know what
is means simpler. If simpler means the number of people being able to understand it,
than the creationism are definitely better. I personally am tending to trust more the
theories which can be Popper falsified. If I wanted I could
go and start digging and I could falsify the evolutionary theory. However I cannot do this
with creationism, hence I believe more in evolution. I don't know which one of them
is really true but I trust one more than the other.

Conspiracy theories are usually very difficult to falsify, hence I tend not to believe them to
much. But it is not because there are more complicated, and reduced by Occam Razor.
There are actually usually simpler.It is alway easer to find a conspiracy than to
understand underlying truth. Especially that truth might actually contradict some of
available data. The data is simply wrong or misinterpreted or whatever.


We have no way to check most of the data which newspapers, TV, Internet feed us.
We can believe that if something was obviously not true somebody will write about it.
I believe in the use of the Occam Razor, but after the use of Popper
falsifiable principle. If after Popper there is still more then one theory which
survives lets use the Razor, but using it from the very beginning will lead us to often to
UN-falsifiable theories which in case of politics or social science will often mean
conspiracy.

The problem starts when you cannot falsify. As I cannot do it with the statement:
Peak Oil will start in less than 5 years. I can only believe it or not. I know that it
will start once, but I have no way to falsify this exact statement.

Just one more thing If somebody asks me why should the theory be falsifiable? I
cannot really answer, I can just say that I think this theories are having better
chance of being closer to the truth, but it is again just my believe, not a hard logic.

I hope I explained myself clear this time:))

Lukasz

Thanks for your extensive reply

lukasz wrote:

The problem starts when you cannot falsify. As I cannot do it with the statement:
Peak Oil will start in less than 5 years. I can only believe it or not. I know that it
will start once, but I have no way to falsify this exact statement.

Lukasz

There is a third alternative. Stick it in the skeptical pending tray. I would not wish to say whether Peak oil will start in less than five years or not. A huge ammount of my own thinking exists in the grey 'maybe' or 'don't know' area rather than the binary black or white, yes or no.

I?ll just throw in my thoughts.

<<If I use Occam Razor I don't know what
is means simpler. If simpler means the number of people being able to understand it,
than the creationism are definitely better.>>


No, in this case ?simpler? means the one with the least amount of extra stuff needed to keep the theory alive. Some theories are very complex and wont be understandable by most people but they are simple in the sense that they do not require extra bits added on that have no supporting evidence to keep it going. Some theories require extra assumptions etc. that are taken for granted in order for the theory to work, in doing so the theory becomes more complex.

<<The problem starts when you cannot falsify. As I cannot do it with the statement:
Peak Oil will start in less than 5 years. I can only believe it or not.>>

You can falsify it by waiting for 5 years or so and seeing if you were correct.

<<Just one more thing If somebody asks me why should the theory be falsifiable? I
cannot really answer, I can just say that I think this theories are having better
chance of being closer to the truth, but it is again just my believe, not a hard logic.>>

Because in science you can use inductive arguments. Which means that you can never be 100% certain that tomorrow a new piece of evidence will come along and show that your theory is wrong. However, if you can find something that shows that your theory is wrong then you can be 100% certain that it is wrong. In other words, science is a means of working out what is the most probable.