I love content like this. It should challenge us and our belief formation process. We can be made to believe what are seemingly obvious truths through overwhelming cumulative cases, i.e. how could...
I love content like this.
It should challenge us and our belief formation process. We can be made to believe what are seemingly obvious truths through overwhelming cumulative cases, i.e. how could there be that many coincidences?
If you've ever made fun of a conspiracy theorist, yet found something shocking about the sheer volume of evidence in this video, you now know how compelling conspiracy theories can be, especially if they align with your worldview. Sure, maybe you don't buy that Back to the Future predicted 9/11 because that's too fringe for you. But what about something similar that comes along that fits neatly into your existing worldview? Are you sure you'd spot it?
This video has the trappings of traditional conspiracy theories. Unlike when actual conspiracies are uncovered where documents are released, recordings are leaked, insiders testify, or people are interviewed what we see is a heavy emphasis on abstract symbolism, where each potential "symbol" on its own is quite a stretch, but cumulatively make a profound case. It feels like it takes advantage of a glitch in our cognition, something similar to how compelling cold reading can be.
This is precisely how Pizzagate and QAnon worked. They had troves of evidence in the form of code: words, symbols, titles, business logos, names, and events were all code for evil acts, and they all potentially pointed to the same Truth. If you've ridiculed Pizzagate or QAnon in the past, you've now been given the ability to experience why these beliefs were so credible in people's minds.
Yes, I believe I would. I'm a hard-core evidentialist. If someone can't show me hard evidence that I can independently verify from reliable sources, I'm not buying into whatever they tell me -...
But what about something similar that comes along that fits neatly into your existing worldview? Are you sure you'd spot it?
Yes, I believe I would.
I'm a hard-core evidentialist. If someone can't show me hard evidence that I can independently verify from reliable sources, I'm not buying into whatever they tell me - even if I like the message they're giving me.
The actual application of this position seems to really hinge on what counts as "evidence." I think "evidence" can be any fact, observed or deduced, that increases the credence of a particular...
The actual application of this position seems to really hinge on what counts as "evidence."
I think "evidence" can be any fact, observed or deduced, that increases the credence of a particular view. There can be "evidence" for views that aren't true: often in court cases there is valid evidence both for and against a particular claim. Of course, P and ~P cannot simultaneously be true, so some views that are evidenced aren't true.
In my view, what this video should do is cause us to evaluate what we consider to be sufficient evidence, and for us to determine what kinds of evidence we'd accept, regardless of whether they independently establish a particular claim or not.
For most people, the default method for determining the validity of evidence is to simply observe the case being made and determine whether they feel the evidence presented credibly establishes a particular claim. Very few people believe things "without evidence", however people do disagree about what conditions and exceptions are applied to evidence for it to be considered "valid."
As an easy gimme: someone talking over the top of movie footage does not constitute "evidence" - not even if they repeat the same point over and over again, trying to convince people through...
As an easy gimme: someone talking over the top of movie footage does not constitute "evidence" - not even if they repeat the same point over and over again, trying to convince people through simple repetition.
In my view, what this video should do is cause us to evaluate what we consider to be sufficient evidence,
I think you put a lot more value on this video than it deserves. It is, quite bluntly, a total piece of rubbish that doesn't deserve to see the light of day - even as an example of what does not constitute "evidence".
This conflates the medium for the message. Thought experiment: let's imagine a world where Back to the Future did actually contain a small note with the exact date, times, names, and location that...
As an easy gimme: someone talking over the top of movie footage does not constitute "evidence"
This conflates the medium for the message.
Thought experiment: let's imagine a world where Back to the Future did actually contain a small note with the exact date, times, names, and location that 9/11 would happen.
A man in a video pointing this out and talking about how unlikely it is that the note is a coincidence would undoubtedly be presenting strong evidence that the makers of the film had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
even as an example of what does not constitute "evidence".
What rules could we apply to exclude the evidence presented in the video that wouldn't apply to the thought experiment I gave above?
Someone talking over a movie and interpreting scenes from that movie, doesn't count as evidence. Even if the movie itself exists and can be considered evidential, the interpretation of a movie is...
let's imagine a world where Back to the Future did actually contain a small note with the exact date, times, names, and location that 9/11 would happen.
A man in a video pointing this out and talking about how unlikely it is that the note is a coincidence would undoubtedly be presenting strong evidence that the makers of the film had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Someone talking over a movie and interpreting scenes from that movie, doesn't count as evidence. Even if the movie itself exists and can be considered evidential, the interpretation of a movie is nothing more than someone's personal opinion - and personal opinions are not evidence, not by any stretch of the imagination. So, this voice-over could only be considered unsupported personal opinion, without some other form of corroborating evidence.
(In this context: art is a mirror. As much as the artist would have their own interpretation of their own art, people can project any interpretation on to art that they see fit. Art often acts as a mirror, reflecting the viewer's own concerns back to them.)
Surely Zemeckis (hypothetically) wouldn't have subtly placed this information into a movie 15 years ahead of the event, and then never told anyone else ever for the next 15 years. If he wanted to keep this information secret, he would not have placed it into a popular movie.
I would therefore expect to hear or see other witnesses attesting before 2001 that Zemeckis told them about some predicted terrorist attack by Muslims on the Twin Towers on 9th September 2001. Hey, even if they attested that he told them beforehand to stay away from the Twin Towers during September, that would be a hint of evidence.
So, evidence number * evidence quality = credibility index With this equation (algorithm?), too many, but rubbish evidence would trend to zero, but a single evidence of great quality presented...
In my view, what this video should do is cause us to evaluate what we consider to be sufficient evidence, and for us to determine what kinds of evidence we'd accept,
So, evidence number * evidence quality = credibility index
With this equation (algorithm?), too many, but rubbish evidence would trend to zero, but a single evidence of great quality presented would make a big number.
Of course, I would like to know if my idea is wrong or defective.
This is close to how I view evidence. I think where evidence comes to play is when comparing two competing views. I mentioned this elsewhere, but incorrect views can have valid evidence...
With this equation (algorithm?), too many, but rubbish evidence would trend to zero, but a single evidence of great quality presented would make a big number.
This is close to how I view evidence. I think where evidence comes to play is when comparing two competing views. I mentioned this elsewhere, but incorrect views can have valid evidence substantiating them, which makes this comparison important. Evidence helps us choose particular views that map onto reality more reliably by allowing us to compare each explanation of reality and see which is better justified. I think that the best way to increase a view's correspondence with reality is to maximize its explanatory power while minimizing its intellectual commitments. If I grant that the video above has a ton of evidence (which perhaps I do), it undermines itself with even greater intellectual commitments that can be derived (just off the top of my head):
there must be a grand conspiracy that 9/11 was planned at least 16 years in advance, well before the foundation of the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda
many people including Robert Zemeckis (for some reason) had well over a decade of foreknowledge of the attacks, and people wanted to warn about 9/11, but failed to do so in a way that stopped the attacks
some significant portion of geopolitical strife in the Middle East is planned out decades in advance, and people and leaders there stick to the playbook without ever revealing this grand conspiracy
There are views, each has evidence, and the ultimate goal is to pick views that are best evidenced without sneaking in additional, often unsupported claims that can be deduced from the original view.
Sure. I would expect them to show me the scientific study that backs up that assertion. They can link to it in their article/video. They can quote from it. They can even quote from a popular...
Sure. I would expect them to show me the scientific study that backs up that assertion. They can link to it in their article/video. They can quote from it. They can even quote from a popular article posted somewhere, that explains the study in a jargon-free way.
I won't accept someone just asserting it on their own say-so.
Hilariously, Deus Ex also predicted a terrorist attack at the WTC - which we could use to presume that "they" were subtilty preparing us for the attack. Of course, Fred Durst received an award...
Hilariously, Deus Ex also predicted a terrorist attack at the WTC - which we could use to presume that "they" were subtilty preparing us for the attack.
Of course, Fred Durst received an award from the NY Port Authority on Sept 10 for the music video for "Rollin'" being shot at the WTC, so we can also posit that Fred masterminded the whole thing to ensure no one else could shoot a music video there.
However, we can also say that the 93 and 01 attacks were inspired by BttF, instead of predicted by. Someone saw the movie and thought "You know what? Great idea."
I remember during the whole Pizzagate debacle, I was paying attention to it to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it. In retrospect, that was probably a bad idea because of the weirdly infectious...
I remember during the whole Pizzagate debacle, I was paying attention to it to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it. In retrospect, that was probably a bad idea because of the weirdly infectious nature of conspiracy theories.
Regardless, one of the pieces of "evidence" that stuck out to me as being particularly absurd was an email asking if anyone had left a scarf in a conference room. Apparently the particular color of the scarf was significant because it related to some obscure, Victorian-era code system for sexual fetishes.
I think Pizzagate folks would've probably agreed that this piece of evidence by itself doesn't "work" to establish the conspiracy. Just like the video above, each piece of evidence by itself is...
Apparently the particular color of the scarf was significant because it related to some obscure, Victorian-era code system for sexual fetishes.
I think Pizzagate folks would've probably agreed that this piece of evidence by itself doesn't "work" to establish the conspiracy. Just like the video above, each piece of evidence by itself is rather flimsy, but it is the massive collection of these coincidences that causes people to become completely, 100% convinced of the truth of Pizzagate.
There were lots of people that predicted 9/11, to some degree. It has already been bombed, arguably unsuccessfully, so any following attack would be presumably larger in scale. You can't easily...
There were lots of people that predicted 9/11, to some degree. It has already been bombed, arguably unsuccessfully, so any following attack would be presumably larger in scale. You can't easily get larger trucks to the building around New York, so the next best thing is something that can fly.
I was having trouble watching that video the whole time through. Every fibre of my being wanted to get up and run away from such ridiculous stupidity. (I'm not exaggerating - I literally felt the...
I was having trouble watching that video the whole time through. Every fibre of my being wanted to get up and run away from such ridiculous stupidity. (I'm not exaggerating - I literally felt the urge to get up out of my chair and move away from the computer.) But I fought the urge, because I believe in giving other viewpoints a fair viewing.
But, about 8½ minutes in, the narrator started talking about "a massive terrestrial meditation, concentrating collective consciousness on to a single space-time focal point"... and my patience snapped.
I refuse to watch such rubbish. I do have limits.
EDIT: So... it appears my satire-detector failed to register this video as satire, even with a satire tag on this post. I plead Poe's Law; this video is entirely too good, and appears to actually BE what it is satirising.
This video is satire. You're not supposed to take their arguments at face value. This is made clear through the disclaimers and the studio name of "Apophenia Productions". It's a demonstration of...
This video is satire. You're not supposed to take their arguments at face value. This is made clear through the disclaimers and the studio name of "Apophenia Productions". It's a demonstration of how you can make tenuous connections between any two things, and as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, you can convince certain kinds of people.
I love content like this.
It should challenge us and our belief formation process. We can be made to believe what are seemingly obvious truths through overwhelming cumulative cases, i.e. how could there be that many coincidences?
If you've ever made fun of a conspiracy theorist, yet found something shocking about the sheer volume of evidence in this video, you now know how compelling conspiracy theories can be, especially if they align with your worldview. Sure, maybe you don't buy that Back to the Future predicted 9/11 because that's too fringe for you. But what about something similar that comes along that fits neatly into your existing worldview? Are you sure you'd spot it?
This video has the trappings of traditional conspiracy theories. Unlike when actual conspiracies are uncovered where documents are released, recordings are leaked, insiders testify, or people are interviewed what we see is a heavy emphasis on abstract symbolism, where each potential "symbol" on its own is quite a stretch, but cumulatively make a profound case. It feels like it takes advantage of a glitch in our cognition, something similar to how compelling cold reading can be.
This is precisely how Pizzagate and QAnon worked. They had troves of evidence in the form of code: words, symbols, titles, business logos, names, and events were all code for evil acts, and they all potentially pointed to the same Truth. If you've ridiculed Pizzagate or QAnon in the past, you've now been given the ability to experience why these beliefs were so credible in people's minds.
Yes, I believe I would.
I'm a hard-core evidentialist. If someone can't show me hard evidence that I can independently verify from reliable sources, I'm not buying into whatever they tell me - even if I like the message they're giving me.
The actual application of this position seems to really hinge on what counts as "evidence."
I think "evidence" can be any fact, observed or deduced, that increases the credence of a particular view. There can be "evidence" for views that aren't true: often in court cases there is valid evidence both for and against a particular claim. Of course, P and ~P cannot simultaneously be true, so some views that are evidenced aren't true.
In my view, what this video should do is cause us to evaluate what we consider to be sufficient evidence, and for us to determine what kinds of evidence we'd accept, regardless of whether they independently establish a particular claim or not.
For most people, the default method for determining the validity of evidence is to simply observe the case being made and determine whether they feel the evidence presented credibly establishes a particular claim. Very few people believe things "without evidence", however people do disagree about what conditions and exceptions are applied to evidence for it to be considered "valid."
As an easy gimme: someone talking over the top of movie footage does not constitute "evidence" - not even if they repeat the same point over and over again, trying to convince people through simple repetition.
I think you put a lot more value on this video than it deserves. It is, quite bluntly, a total piece of rubbish that doesn't deserve to see the light of day - even as an example of what does not constitute "evidence".
This conflates the medium for the message.
Thought experiment: let's imagine a world where Back to the Future did actually contain a small note with the exact date, times, names, and location that 9/11 would happen.
A man in a video pointing this out and talking about how unlikely it is that the note is a coincidence would undoubtedly be presenting strong evidence that the makers of the film had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
What rules could we apply to exclude the evidence presented in the video that wouldn't apply to the thought experiment I gave above?
Someone talking over a movie and interpreting scenes from that movie, doesn't count as evidence. Even if the movie itself exists and can be considered evidential, the interpretation of a movie is nothing more than someone's personal opinion - and personal opinions are not evidence, not by any stretch of the imagination. So, this voice-over could only be considered unsupported personal opinion, without some other form of corroborating evidence.
(In this context: art is a mirror. As much as the artist would have their own interpretation of their own art, people can project any interpretation on to art that they see fit. Art often acts as a mirror, reflecting the viewer's own concerns back to them.)
Surely Zemeckis (hypothetically) wouldn't have subtly placed this information into a movie 15 years ahead of the event, and then never told anyone else ever for the next 15 years. If he wanted to keep this information secret, he would not have placed it into a popular movie.
I would therefore expect to hear or see other witnesses attesting before 2001 that Zemeckis told them about some predicted terrorist attack by Muslims on the Twin Towers on 9th September 2001. Hey, even if they attested that he told them beforehand to stay away from the Twin Towers during September, that would be a hint of evidence.
So,
evidence number * evidence quality = credibility indexWith this equation (algorithm?), too many, but rubbish evidence would trend to zero, but a single evidence of great quality presented would make a big number.
Of course, I would like to know if my idea is wrong or defective.
This is close to how I view evidence. I think where evidence comes to play is when comparing two competing views. I mentioned this elsewhere, but incorrect views can have valid evidence substantiating them, which makes this comparison important. Evidence helps us choose particular views that map onto reality more reliably by allowing us to compare each explanation of reality and see which is better justified. I think that the best way to increase a view's correspondence with reality is to maximize its explanatory power while minimizing its intellectual commitments. If I grant that the video above has a ton of evidence (which perhaps I do), it undermines itself with even greater intellectual commitments that can be derived (just off the top of my head):
There are views, each has evidence, and the ultimate goal is to pick views that are best evidenced without sneaking in additional, often unsupported claims that can be deduced from the original view.
Imagine something plausible sounding like
x generates Y emissions, dozens of times what z produces.
Sure. I would expect them to show me the scientific study that backs up that assertion. They can link to it in their article/video. They can quote from it. They can even quote from a popular article posted somewhere, that explains the study in a jargon-free way.
I won't accept someone just asserting it on their own say-so.
Hilariously, Deus Ex also predicted a terrorist attack at the WTC - which we could use to presume that "they" were subtilty preparing us for the attack.
Of course, Fred Durst received an award from the NY Port Authority on Sept 10 for the music video for "Rollin'" being shot at the WTC, so we can also posit that Fred masterminded the whole thing to ensure no one else could shoot a music video there.
However, we can also say that the 93 and 01 attacks were inspired by BttF, instead of predicted by. Someone saw the movie and thought "You know what? Great idea."
I remember during the whole Pizzagate debacle, I was paying attention to it to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it. In retrospect, that was probably a bad idea because of the weirdly infectious nature of conspiracy theories.
Regardless, one of the pieces of "evidence" that stuck out to me as being particularly absurd was an email asking if anyone had left a scarf in a conference room. Apparently the particular color of the scarf was significant because it related to some obscure, Victorian-era code system for sexual fetishes.
The mind boggles.
I think Pizzagate folks would've probably agreed that this piece of evidence by itself doesn't "work" to establish the conspiracy. Just like the video above, each piece of evidence by itself is rather flimsy, but it is the massive collection of these coincidences that causes people to become completely, 100% convinced of the truth of Pizzagate.
I get that it's satire, but the X-files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen" did predict 9/11 with some accuracy:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-x-files-spinoff-predicted-9-11-six-months-before-tragedy.html/
There were lots of people that predicted 9/11, to some degree. It has already been bombed, arguably unsuccessfully, so any following attack would be presumably larger in scale. You can't easily get larger trucks to the building around New York, so the next best thing is something that can fly.
The YouTube comments are extra interesting, even for YouTube comments.
I was having trouble watching that video the whole time through. Every fibre of my being wanted to get up and run away from such ridiculous stupidity. (I'm not exaggerating - I literally felt the urge to get up out of my chair and move away from the computer.) But I fought the urge, because I believe in giving other viewpoints a fair viewing.
But, about 8½ minutes in, the narrator started talking about "a massive terrestrial meditation, concentrating collective consciousness on to a single space-time focal point"... and my patience snapped.
I refuse to watch such rubbish. I do have limits.
EDIT: So... it appears my satire-detector failed to register this video as satire, even with a
satiretag on this post. I plead Poe's Law; this video is entirely too good, and appears to actually BE what it is satirising.This video is satire. You're not supposed to take their arguments at face value. This is made clear through the disclaimers and the studio name of "Apophenia Productions". It's a demonstration of how you can make tenuous connections between any two things, and as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, you can convince certain kinds of people.
I think I'm dumber for having watched that. 😂
This honestly had me in bits, it's hysterical.
This is so stupid I felt my brain cells dying during the 10 seconds of it I actually watched.