71–80 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started reading this and then I thought of Occam's Razor. This theory is appears way too complex to be true, something much simpler likely happened.
Yes, but then there would never be conspiracies because they are almost always more complicated than non-conspiracies.
On top of everything others said, what kind of nation hijacks a plane with 152 Chinese nationals, unless they want a war with China? (And if they do want a war with China, why bother with such a complicated plot?) If Russia did it, and if China finds out, does anybody think China will say, "Well, it's Russia, we'll protest at UN and demand economic sanction"? Moscow and Beijing will be in rubbles when the dusts clear…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was also the part I found most interesting. Over the past several months, I've been putting an increasing level of thought into how people reach conclusions and investigate technical problems, and looking at things like confirmation bias, and I see it happen in myself and others. The best example I have, is a vendor I work with had an outage in their platform, and we spent weeks going through the data, where the…
The first time I read that story it was about roast beef, so I'm guessing there's a number of variations and adaptations.
I think the main point of the story is not to convince us that he has a good proof. But rather to document how we convince ourselves, and how we latch on to small things and head down a path. Once we are on a path we become commited to it and it becomes hard to turn back. Notice how he talks about the "crazies" on the forum. How they would use aliases, log back in and mention their stupid "lightning" theory, and he h…
This was also the part I found most interesting. Over the past several months, I've been putting an increasing level of thought into how people reach conclusions and investigate technical problems, and looking at things like confirmation bias, and I see it happen in myself and others. The best example I have, is a vendor I work with had an outage in their platform, and we spent weeks going through the data, where the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first time I read that story it was about roast beef, so I'm guessing there's a number of variations and adaptations.
The first time I heard this story it was monkeys, bananas, a ladder and cold water.
Monkey's at work hey, quite pertinent actually. Time to start looking for a new job :/
1. http://johnstepper.com/2013/10/26/the-five-monkeys-experimen...
The difficult thing with this sort of article is that while it generally sounds plausible, the layperson reader doesn't know about the specifics. I don't know anything about BFO spoofing or handshake rings. This means that all I can really judge this article on is its presentation and logical reasoning, and while both seem okay, there's no way for me to evaluate the premises and finer points that the piece critically…
I started reading this and then I thought of Occam's Razor. This theory is appears way too complex to be true, something much simpler likely happened.
> It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did.
If your goal was stealing a large airplane, I think there's easier ways of doing that. If your goal was getting at the cargo or the passengers, it's highly probable that doing it on the ground is also much easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to have people looking in the wrong place, in a way that they will look indefinitely
I don't think I agree. I think this is something that can often backfire. If someone creates evidence that say's the plane crashed at location x, when location X is searched and there is no plane, I still have more information than I started. I know the evidence that led me to location x is incorrect. This could be because the data is bad, or due to tampering. If I'm now focused on tampering and able to corroborate t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor, IMHO. Simple explanations are not more likely to be true. What Occam's Razor says is that if you have 2 theories that fit the same data, you should pick the simplest one. Why? Because it is simpler, not because it is more likely to be true. It is important to remember that when we are dealing with scientific theories, we are not really all that concerned with truth…
In reference to your paragraph on scientific theory: In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true. In science it is only possible to disprove or falsify theories. You can actually extract this concept from a famous statement in science and statistics: "Correlation does not imply causation" This basically means nothing can be proven, we can only correlate things. If you negate that statement…
>In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true.
If this were the case, the word "true" would have no meaning. We prove things in science all the time. We proved that you can cross a river without getting wet, for instance. We proved that humans can travel to the moon.
The examples are endless, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to have people looking in the wrong place, in a way that they will look indefinitely
I don't think I agree. I think this is something that can often backfire. If someone creates evidence that say's the plane crashed at location x, when location X is searched and there is no plane, I still have more information than I started. I know the evidence that led me to location x is incorrect. This could be because the data is bad, or due to tampering. If I'm now focused on tampering and able to corroborate t…