Teo, put your conspiracy beliefs to the test or expect to be banned.

[NonZeroSum]

-

@teo123 You're not arguing rationally and it's a drain on other forum members time, as moderators we've deceded you have to commit to testing your unfounded conspiracy beliefs and for us to see an improvement in your critical thinking skills or you will be banned.

We're setting the task for you to visit your local prison and report back your research conclusions, with a selfie to prove you were there. A month from now should be fair, so the 25th of October. If you don't post very often and are busy with university work, we may give you an extension. If you waste a lot of time posting, which you could have used to simply visit your local prison, we won't.

If you like, you can ask me to perform the same experiment or name some other hypothesis you'd like me to research, and I'll do it.

Here is a link to the rules of the forum: viewtopic.php?t=2115

1. Content of Posts

This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.

-

Here is all the information you'll need to get started:

Address: Ul. Kardinala Alojzija Stepinca 8A, 31000, Osijek, Croatia

Visiting time: The second and fourth Sundays of the month - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m

Here's the website with more information: https://pravosudje.gov.hr/zatvor-u-osijeku/6582

This is the entrance:







-

This is an example outline of how to use the scientific method:



Question: Do prisons exist?

Background research: Satellite footage and pictures of thousands of specialised prison architecture, 1000s of hours of footage inside prisons you can cross reference with pictures to know where it was taken.

Hypothesis: Prisons exist.

Test: Show up at the prison at visitor time:

The second and fourth Sundays of the month - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Collect visual evidence of staff employed their to do a job, family visiting inmates that aren’t allowed out, collect first person testimony. Walk over to the courthouse nextdoor and sit in the gallery of a random trail, collect visual evidence of lawyers trying to prevent the defendant going to jail, the judge deciding what is admissible and what is not based on the countries laws, collect first person testimonies.

Procedure working: Already been done by other people, so yes.

Analyse data and draw conclusion: Occam’s razor, you’d have to believe everyone you met was a really skilled payed actor for it all to be a complex deception, which would be a really dumb idea for the complex explanations needed to even hypothesise why would someone want to do that, etc.

Results align with hypothesis.

Result: Prisons exist.

This is done 1000s of times over everyday to a reasonable burden of proof. The reasonable burden for outer body experiences like a soul, although propounded by lots of deluded people, hasn’t once been proven. People have put signs in operating rooms face up to the ceiling to know if anyone can read them, no one has ever done so.

-

[teo123]

Let's say I do that and that it really seems like there is a jail there. After all, I've done that many times with the "jail" in Požega where my mother was. Then we are left with two options:

1) Jails really exist. There don't have to be massive conspiracies, but the basic principle of social sciences (that the society behaves as if everybody was rational, because irrationalities of the individuals cancel each other out) is false.

2) Jails are fake. There are massive conspiracies which involve my parents, but the basic principle of social sciences may be correct.

Which option is more likely and why?

[Red]

Let's say I do that and that it really seems like there is a jail there. After all, I've done that many times with the "jail" in Požega where my mother was. Then we are left with two options:

1) Jails really exist. There don't have to be massive conspiracies, but the basic principle of social sciences (that the society behaves as if everybody was rational, because irrationalities of the individuals cancel each other out) is false.

2) Jails are fake. There are massive conspiracies which involve my parents, but the basic principle of social sciences may be correct.

Which option is more likely and why?

Seems as though you don't understand what 'behaving rationally' means in regards to social sciences.

Even if it did mean it in the way you think, a principle of a scientific field (which we've already talked about is a soft science and thus is dicey and not 100% reliable) in regards to methodology tells us nothing about what happens in the real world.

From Wikipedia:

The concept of rationality used in rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. Colloquially, "rational" behaviour typically means "sensible", "predictable", or "in a thoughtful, clear-headed manner." Rational choice theory uses a narrower definition of rationality. At its most basic level, behavior is rational if it is goal-oriented, reflective (evaluative), and consistent (across time and different choice situations). This contrasts with behavior that is random, impulsive, conditioned, or adopted by (unevaluative) imitation.

It also seems that this is more of a hypothesis rather than anything else.

Also, how come literally no social scientist supports your idea that jails don't exist?

[thebestofenergy]

Which option is more likely and why?

Let's do an experiment.

You have two buttons in front of you, a red button and a yellow button.
By pressing the red button, you say that jails don't exist, it's a conspiracy, and that the government and your parents are obviously involved in it, just like everyone else.
By pressing the yellow button, you say that it's not a conspiracy, and that you were wrong - jails do exist.

You HAVE to press a button.
If you press the wrong button, you die. And if you don't press either button in 10 seconds, you die as well.

Which button do you press, and gamble your chances on? Or do you press neither and die?
And why do you press that button?

[teo123]

Seems as though you don't understand what 'behaving rationally' means in regards to social sciences.

Why would it be more likely that you understand that correctly? I've published some social science papers in peer-reviewed journals (you can see one of them in this PDF on page 70), and you haven't.

Even if it did mean it in the way you think, a principle of a scientific field (which we've already talked about is a soft science and thus is dicey and not 100% reliable) in regards to methodology tells us nothing about what happens in the real world.

What do you mean it tells us nothing about what happens in the real world? Computer science papers never explain away apparent anomalies as hardware glitches (that the hardware once behaves correctly, and once incorrectly), and such a paper probably wouldn't get published. Doesn't that strongly suggest such things are very unlikely? Even if you don't understand why that's unlikely, you should accept that such explanations are very likely wrong. And the explanation is relatively simple: if the hardware worked correctly 99.9999% of the time, the computer would be useless due to constant blue-screening, and you wouldn't be able to run your program on such a computer. Similarly, if the principle of rationality weren't true in some society, we would expect its economy not to work and many people there to starve to death. Prisons would be the least of your worries then.

Also, how come literally no social scientist supports your idea that jails don't exist?

Well, most social scientists aren't comfortable talking about such politically sensitive topics.

Which button do you press, and gamble your chances on?

Well, I'll press the red button, because the principle of rationality seems to be a more fundamental principle in social science than the principle that massive conspiracies don't happen. Social scientists often appeal to the principle of rationality in their papers, and they almost never appeal to the principle of massive conspiracies being impossible.

[NonZeroSum]

Let's say I do that and that it really seems like there is a jail there. After all, I've done that many times with the "jail" in Požega where my mother was. . . There are massive conspiracies which involve my parents

I look forward to your reflections before October 25th when you breakdown why you think you went from not believing in jails, to believing in them because you visited your mom in one, to doubting your own experiences again, to whatever happens to your beliefs when you re-visit your local jail and report back.

It's like a really mundane soap opera that I can't stop watching because it's real life and I'm invested in how conspiracy theorists minds work.

If you were able to do an honest accounting of your thought process I'd bet a million dollars on "didn't want prisons to have to be a thing, so slipt back into the comfortable delusion that they're not a thing and I enjoy feeling so smart for being in the minority who has come to this realisation."

Teo 3 years ago:

I guess one of the reasons it's a bit hard to debate with me is that, before my mother ended up in prison, I believed prisons didn't actually exist. Now I am thinking: "OK, obviously, they exist, but perhaps they aren't necessairy." I had put so much effort trying to figure out how the world works that it's hard for me to believe I got almost everything wrong (and that others, most of whom didn't think about those things at all, somehow got it right).

[Red]

Why would it be more likely that you understand that correctly? I've published some social science papers in peer-reviewed journals (you can see one of them in this PDF on page 70), and you haven't.

r/iamverysmart

How do you know I haven't done any research? How do you know I'm not doing any research right now? Maybe I just don't want to give away that information. Also maybe I don't feel as though boasting about research makes me look like I know what I'm talking about (in your case, it just makes you look more and more petulant, and desperately seeking validation). Doing research isn't being part of any special intellectual elite Teo, college and high school students do it all the time. Get over it.

Shitty papers get published, even in places like the US and Canada; I can't imagine how shitty they might be wherever you're from. It's even easier with social sciences too, as we've already established.

It's more likely I understand it better than you do because A) You're wrong almost 100% of the time, and B) I actually looked to what the experts say on the subject, not go with a shitty misunderstanding of it like you did.

I already gave you the Wikipedia quote, but to summarize, in the social sciences, 'Behaving Rationally' means that agents establish goals, will evaluate the situation as to how they can achieve the goal, and be consistent with it. Like with prisons, the goal is to punish and remove people from society. Now, punishment in and of itself is usually irrational, but in this context, that's the goal that's trying to be achieved, thus in the cases of social sciences, it's rational.

What do you mean it tells us nothing about what happens in the real world?

Just because a principle is assumed in a certain methodology (which it isn't even, it's a hypothesis) doesn't mean that's what actually happens.

Similarly, if the principle of rationality weren't true in some society, we would expect its economy not to work and many people there to starve to death. Prisons would be the least of your worries then.

No one is suggesting people are irrational 100% of the time. Plus I've already explained this is just based on a misunderstanding of the topic.

Well, most social scientists aren't comfortable talking about such politically sensitive topics.

No, that isn't the case at all. Think about how ground-breaking it'd be if you somehow proved that prisons don't exist; Your name would definitely be in the history books, and you'd win a nobel prize for sure.

Political scientists talk about politically sensitive topics all the time, especially nowadays. A paper like that would be read by pretty much every social scientist, and the media would sensationalize the hell out of it, like they do with a lot of science in general.

Even what your saying is true, how come not one social scientist out there has said anything about it? Not a single one? I'll tell you why; Because it's bullshit and so ridiculous no one would waste their time with it.

[teo123]

whatever happens to your beliefs when you re-visit your local jail and report back.

What's the point? I know that, if I visit the jail in Osijek, I'd see about the same stuff I saw when visiting my mother in jail in Požega. Except that the custodians at the door probably won't let me enter the jail in Osijek because none of my family members are there. And even if they let me in, they would almost certainly take my mobile phone, so I won't be able to take a selfie inside of the jail.

Doing research isn't being part of any special intellectual elite Teo, college and high school students do it all the time.

Well, obviously, where I live, the vast majority of high-school students don't, neither do the undergraduate students.

Shitty papers get published

Having published no papers at all is way more alarming (that you don't understand the subject) than having published only bad papers. And what makes you think my papers are bad?

It's even easier with social sciences too, as we've already established.

Maybe. Maybe not. Soft sciences aren't necessarily easier to do than hard sciences are. Exams in the softer parts of computer science can be either significantly harder or significantly easier to pass, depending on the professor. Arguably one of the most difficult courses on my university is "Razvoj programske podrške objektno orijentiranim načelima" (I think this can be loosely translated as "object oriented development"), which is hard precisely because it's a softer part of computer science. The professors who grade that test only accept the best answers, they don't accept the somewhat-correct answers.

'Behaving Rationally' means that agents establish goals, will evaluate the situation as to how they can achieve the goal, and be consistent with it.

So, you think that Brian Caplan was, in his bestseller "Myth of the Rational Voter", essentially attacking a straw-man? It's clear that "rationality", to him, means, more or less, "no systematic biases".

Just because a principle is assumed in a certain methodology (which it isn't even, it's a hypothesis) doesn't mean that's what actually happens.

Again, I don't see what you mean.
Linguists use the comparative method to establish language relationships, and the comparative method presupposes that phonetic laws are accurate, because linguists believe (with very good reasons) phonetic laws are accurate. If they didn't believe phonetic laws were more-or-less accurate, they wouldn't use the comparative method.
Computer scientists use methods that assume hardware glitches don't happen, because they believe (with very good reasons) hardware glitches don't occur.

No one is suggesting people are irrational 100% of the time.

If there were systematic biases in some society, we'd expect massive shortages of some everyday products and massive surpluses of some other everyday products. Like in Venezuela, where the economy is governed by a small group of similarly-biased people.

Political scientists talk about politically sensitive topics all the time, especially nowadays. A paper like that would be read by pretty much every social scientist, and the media would sensationalize the hell out of it, like they do with a lot of science in general.

Blind speculation by somebody with no experience. I personally know a PhD economist who has been trying to publish some paper blaming the government corruption for the problems with Croatian economy, and he is having a lot of trouble publishing it (almost certainly because it's so politically sensitive). And when such papers do get published, they never get sensationalized.

Even what your saying is true, how come not one social scientist out there has said anything about it?

Well, maybe there are a few published papers about jails not existing, just like there are a few published papers about government corruption.

[Red]

Well, obviously, where I live, the vast majority of high-school students don't, neither do the undergraduate students.

The vast majority don't do it in other countries either, I'm just saying it doesn't make you a genius for doing so.

Having published no papers at all is way more alarming (that you don't understand the subject) than having published only bad papers.

My point was that just because a paper is published, that doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the paper.

And what makes you think my papers are bad?

Because you wrote them.

Maybe. Maybe not. Soft sciences aren't necessarily easier to do than hard sciences are. Exams in the softer parts of computer science can be either significantly harder or significantly easier to pass, depending on the professor.

My point is that since social sciences aren't as rigorous, the results aren't as reliable.

So, you think that Brian Caplan was, in his bestseller "Myth of the Rational Voter", essentially attacking a straw-man? It's clear that "rationality", to him, means, more or less, "no systematic biases".

I know someone who read that book (and you haven't), so I'll ask him about it.
Wikipedia says this though:

The book is notable in use of irrationality, a rare assumption in economics. Yet the work is also a challenge to conventional public choice, where voters are seen as rationally ignorant. Conventional public choice either emphasizes the efficiency of democracy (as in the case of Donald Wittman) or, more commonly, democratic failure because of the interaction between self-interested politicians or bureaucrats, well-organized, rent-seeking special interests and a largely indifferent general public (as in the work of Gordon Tullock, James M. Buchanan, and many others).

Again, I don't see what you mean.

An assumption in social sciences doesn't mean that's what actually happens.

If there were systematic biases in some society, we'd expect massive shortages of some everyday products and massive surpluses of some other everyday products.

That used to happen quite regularly.

Blind speculation by somebody with no experience.

I see you're getting pretty defensive now Teo.

Maybe you should pay more attention to science in actually developed countries.

I personally know a PhD economist who has been trying to publish some paper blaming the government corruption for the problems with Croatian economy, and he is having a lot of trouble publishing it (almost certainly because it's so politically sensitive).

Granting the existence of Croatia, it more seems like it's because the government is corrupt. A paper like that would have no issue being published in an actually free country,

And when such papers do get published, they never get sensationalized.

Shows your complete ignorance of the media when it comes to science.

Well, maybe there are a few published papers about jails not existing, just like there are a few published papers about government corruption.

Then find one out there; We're all curious to see.

[Red]

I imagine Teo going to visit a jail to end up something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YfRbNipdOg