Testing for Absurdity, or The Gravy Line

[ref]

The opening post was like . . . really long.


Is there a version done in comic strip form, since those are the only threads I read any more?

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm all for this "Gravy Line", but the bigger question is, what happened to the "Gravy Train"?

TAM

 

[Totovader]

I would have thought the scientific method would have been good enough.

 

[Anti-sophist]

The problem with this metric is it's too difficult to calculate in your head. I shall help! The good news is it can be faithfully described in log space as an additive metric instead of a multiplicative metric! Aren't you excited!?

I propose an alternate metric, A, which is a transformed version of the original metric, M. My metric faithfully represents all the properties of the original but with the added benefit of being incredibly easy to calculate in your head.

I'll save you all the derivation but...

Every initial theory starts off at 0.
A partial theory counts as a major negative.
An 'artifact' counts as an additional major negative.

Major negatives are -1.0
Minor negatives are -0.333 (or -1/3)
Minor positives are +0.333 (or 1/3)
Major positives are +1.0

In this revised system, you add, not multiply (which should be fairly easy to do mentally). And the Mackey Line (M=0.05) corresponds to an A=-4.333... or negative 4 and 1/3.

In case you care, my metric is merely a transform of Mackeys, where M = 2^A, where M is the original metric, and A is the anti-sophist metric! Since mine is an exponent, multiplying Ms is actually adding As. Voila!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The problem with this metric is it's too difficult to calculate in your head. I shall help! The good news is it can be faithfully described in log space as an additive metric instead of a multiplicative metric! Aren't you excited!?

I propose an alternate metric, A, which is a transformed version of the original metric, M. My metric faithfully represents all the properties of the original but with the added benefit of being incredibly easy to calculate in your head.

I'll save you all the derivation but...

Every initial theory starts off at 0.
A partial theory counts as a major negative.
An 'artifact' counts as an additional major negative.

Major negatives are -1.0
Minor negatives are -0.333 (or -1/3)
Minor positives are +0.333 (or 1/3)
Major positives are +1.0

In this revised system, you add, not multiply (which should be fairly easy to do mentally). And the Mackey Line (M=0.05) corresponds to an A=-4.333... or negative 4 and 1/3.

In case you care, my metric is merely a transform of Mackeys, where M = 2^A, where M is the original metric, and A is the anti-sophist metric! Since mine is an exponent, multiplying Ms is actually adding As. Voila!

That made my brain hurt. Come here so I can stab you with a porcupine.

 

[Myriad]

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, it certainly isn't complex enough to have come from Shadowrun.

 

[Hellbound]

I have a horrible suspicion that R.Mackey copied this from the character creation section of GURPS: Troother.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You know, this does have a distinct Gurps: Illuminati feel to it, doesn't it?

"What about optometrists? They get you all alone in a dark room, and start flashing pictures and words at you that you can't quite make out..."

 

[AZCat]

I'm all for this "Gravy Line", but the bigger question is, what happened to the "Gravy Train"?

TAM

The "Gravy Train" travels on the "Gravy Line". We're all riding the "Gravy Train" and trying to throw the less-than-spectacular theories off the train (on the wrong side of the "Gravy Line" tracks).

 

[8den]

Well, it certainly isn't complex enough to have come from Shadowrun.

2nd edition right? 1st Edition had a loophole were in you could bring down a small helicopter with a derringer in the right circumstances.

Oh rule8! my nerd is showing!

 

[TjW]

Perhaps it should be submitted to the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Although, since the calculations are reproducible, it may not qualify.

 

[Brainster]

I like the concept although of course it gets a bit slippery when one tries to decide whether something requires a major negative adjustment and of course you are actually analyzing the claim in order to determine whether it is worth analyzing, which seems a bit circular to me.

However, I do think all debunkers have a mental Gravy Line beyond which they will not bother. For example, Killtown often begs me to try debunking his claim that Val McClatchey's photo was faked. I've never quite felt inclined to bother for the simple reason that it means nothing. You could argue that it amounts to an anomaly or artifact, but scoring it at .25 seems quite a bit generous.

For me the key becomes more "If true, what does this imply?" And in the case of Val's photo, the answer is "not much". Indeed, it does nothing for the "Inside Job" theory. It's just one of those shiny objects that the Deniers seem to collect like packrats. It's much like this ridiculous fascination with the BBC's announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually did.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I like it! I think it would be particularly useful for comparative purposes. I'd love to see a plausibilometer graph of Truther arguments.

It does seem to apply particularly well to a discussion, such as keeping score of a theory in a forum thread.

You should cross-post this in the General Skepticism forum and see what they think.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Plausibilometer. I like it. Can we make it so that if you input an absurd theory a spring launches a boxing glove into yer kisser?

NOZ PLANZ HITTED THE PENTIGON PWNED!

 

[Alareth]

2nd edition right? 1st Edition had a loophole were in you could bring down a small helicopter with a derringer in the right circumstances.

Oh rule8! my nerd is showing!

I know a guy that tried to argue that since his char was a dwarf, he would be able to survive a fall off a skyscraper if he aimed his PAC at the ground and started shooting. He thought the recoil would be sufficient to slow his descent.

Did I mention I was once a Tourney GM for Shadowrun at Gencon and serveral of the developers are friends of mine?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why the "Gravy Line?" The plausibility threshold resembles a "water mark" in that it attempts to classify a wide range of arguments against a single limit. Gravy, like water, seeks its own level, but unlike water is opaque, and also viscous, with arguments falling below the Line unlikely to ever resurface or to be seen again. Arguments that fail this test can be said to have been debunked by Gravy.

I suggest that such arguments be called giblets, since those tend to sink below the surface of gravy.

By the way: nominated.

DR

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

By the way: nominated.

DR

Seconded

SYL

 

[Swing Dangler]

Interesting Idea...

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

If the math shows the particular conspiracy theory to be absurd, when in fact the conspiracy theory at the time was actually a conspiracy fact, what does that say about the formula? Is it a junk formula?

Send the whole thing through a case example and see how it plays out.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mr. Mackey, sir, when you resort to such overt falsehoods, so often, you reveal the weakness of your own position. Below is your "no planes" example, with errors explained.

Examples

2. Analysis of television news footage proves that, instead of jetliners hitting the World Trade Center as was widely reported, the event was hoaxed using digital video editing techniques and special effects. (thread)

The theory presented is not complete, because it does not describe how the attacks really were carried out (and leaves no readily apparent candidate), who did this, or why. We must treat this as an Anomaly or Artifact, and assign an initial plausibility score of 0.25.

​

The theory does so describe how this aspect of the attacks were carried out, and does so offer readily apparent candidates. Video of planes was inserted into live pictures of the towers. Towers were hit by either pre-planted explosives, missiles, or directed energy weapons.

The evidence presented in support of this theory is disputable on its face, and the theory makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.

False. The theory does so make predictions. My velocity study predicts that velocity graph lines derived from legitimate videos will smooth out upon stablilization. This is a testable, falsifiable prediction. It also predicts that a known composite video made by the methods I describe will display the opposite effect upon the graph lines, and this too is falsifiable.

The same can be said of other aspects of the entire no-planes argument. We do not believe it possible for such an aircraft to break completely through a steel frame as it is alleged. Though it would cost a lot of money, in theory this too is testable.

Methods of calculation are ad hoc and nonstandard, permitting no easy review. There are no positive adjustments.

My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.

There are, however, several negative adjustments:

• The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication exist

What planet have you been living on? Video overlay technology has been operational since the 1960's. This old school approach may have been used. Much more sophisticated overlay technology has been operational since 1998, as mentioned in my paper.

• The assumption that all major news organizations are complicit in this plot

Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit
is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.

• The repeated refusal to address those who witnessed the impacts, rather than finding out about them through news organizations.

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations. Eyewitness statements take a back seat to physical evidence anyway.

• Repeated arguments from personal incredulity regarding the phenomenology of the collapses that eventually followed

No government reports even deal with the phenomenology of the "collapses". A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways. In the end, there is no evidence for very much mass at all left in the footprint, so Greening and co. baselessly claim that "it all went in the basement".

More negative adjustments accrue as the discussion progresses, but as we can see, the discussion is itself unnecessary. Even if we stop with the four major negative adjustments listed above, the aggregate plausibility score of this argument is 0.25 * (0.5)⁴ = 0.016, well below the Gravy Line.

Debunked.

This is fitting, as the argument presented above violates the laws of physics,

No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

ignores current technological limits,

debunked, above

gainsays witnesses, and rankles common sense.

Major work is required before anything derived from this theory should be given the floor.

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

 

[tacodaemon]

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

Can you suggest an example of something that was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory but later became generally accepted as authoritative?