Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I was playing the resident evil 3 remake yesterday, and it got me thinking - could modern media and video games feed into the rise of 'nutty' conspiracy theories?.

I'd say it's more the other way around myself. You get conspiracy theory stuff in games because they're prominent in the cultural consciousness, even among people who don't believe in that sort of thing. They do, as many posters have pointed out, make for gripping narratives when you ignore all the ways they don't make sense.

Suspect there’s some kind of loop in play.

Person plays Resi 3. Thinks the underground facility is a cool concept.

Person then looks for real world examples. And some do exist, stuff like Missile Silos, forgotten bomb shelters. For example? Where I grew up in Edinburgh, up on Corstorphine Hill? Is a disused/never used Cold War era bunker.

Depending on which rabbit hole you go down, it can lead to ever more bizarre theories.

Comes to think of it, I think there’s one just down the road where I now live in Tunbridge Wells? Yup, Memory does service. And shall have a beer as a reward.

There are also all sorts of rumours about tunnels under the town. All man made, apparently leading from The Pantiles to the Common. Even rumours of unfeasibly long ones going up to Hawkenbury, which is now part of the town.

Particularly in the U.K., most sizeable towns likely have such relics. Either old storage places, smuggling holes or remnants of WW2 planning.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[

Person then looks for real world examples. And some do exist, stuff like Missile Silos, forgotten bomb shelters. For example? Where I grew up in Edinburgh, up on Corstorphine Hill? Is a disused/never used Cold War era bunker.
.

Huh!

I have lived in Edinburgh for ten years and I have never heard of this place.

Consider me educated and extremely interested.

Thanks!

Deadnight wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[

Person then looks for real world examples. And some do exist, stuff like Missile Silos, forgotten bomb shelters. For example? Where I grew up in Edinburgh, up on Corstorphine Hill? Is a disused/never used Cold War era bunker.
.

Huh!

I have lived in Edinburgh for ten years and I have never heard of this place.

Consider me educated and extremely interested.

Thanks!

First heard about it at Primary School in Drum Brae. Of course the legend was there were skellingtons and dead bodies, but hey!

Deadnight wrote:


I just wonder if the 'ease' and familiarity we have with this huge facilities in our media and video games could help hoodwink people into thinking these kinds of things were possible when they're not. They're nothing like facilities in real life. I work in them, I mean, were the resi 3 secret facility real, a facility that big would cost billions and would require (tens of) thousand states of workers and years to build. It would not be a secret.

Just a thought..

Like the supposed armies of the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, that guard the ice wall running the circumference of the Flat Earth.
They appear to grand masters of hide-and-seek, with amazing unique survival skills.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[

Person then looks for real world examples. And some do exist, stuff like Missile Silos, forgotten bomb shelters. For example? Where I grew up in Edinburgh, up on Corstorphine Hill? Is a disused/never used Cold War era bunker.
.

Huh!

I have lived in Edinburgh for ten years and I have never heard of this place.

Consider me educated and extremely interested.

Thanks!

First heard about it at Primary School in Drum Brae. Of course the legend was there were skellingtons and dead bodies, but hey!

You two would have a field day over where i live .

I cant walk 100m without bunkers.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[

Person then looks for real world examples. And some do exist, stuff like Missile Silos, forgotten bomb shelters. For example? Where I grew up in Edinburgh, up on Corstorphine Hill? Is a disused/never used Cold War era bunker.
.

Huh!

I have lived in Edinburgh for ten years and I have never heard of this place.

Consider me educated and extremely interested.

Thanks!

First heard about it at Primary School in Drum Brae. Of course the legend was there were skellingtons and dead bodies, but hey!

You two would have a field day over where i live .

I cant walk 100m without bunkers.

Kent is particularly well served, what with being on the main invasion routes.

It’s actually one of my favourite counter-invasion tactics - remove all the road signs. I love going for a bimble round the country lanes, for they are twisty and turny. Great for an adventure with no set destination. Given during the WW2 era we didn’t have A roads or Motorways? That’s a remarkably efficient way to confuse the enemy.

I think town/village name signs were also taken down?

Sure, the enemy could find their way in the end. But it’ll slow it all down!

They removed/blacked out all the town names and roads. The idea being that any spies dropped at night would find it hard to orientate themselves if there was no signage around. It also was supposed to help identify potential spies to the local since locals would already know where they were and the way to most common local places. So people asking for directions would get spotted.

Remembering that in those days we didn't have google maps and the like.

Yup.

Time for another thread! But here....or Geek Media?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

Time for another thread! But here....or Geek Media?

I don't think you can call the real world Geek Media

Well, historical niche can be Geeky!

In terms of the Conspirasphere? David Icke has been banned from FB.

I’m not going to link to the story, as it contains bizarre racist stuff from the man himself. Suffice to say I can’t see Twitter keeping him around much longer.

He has of course called it all ‘fascist’, and shows ‘the elite are scared’.

No mate. People are just fed up with your unhinged drivel.

I'm afraid to ask, who is David Icke?

...

I received a class in introductory astrophysics by a Dutch astronomer named Vincent Icke once. Probably no relation though..

Oh you sweet, Summer Child with Ribbons in your hair.

I’ll......I’ll let Google answer that one for you. Because you won’t believe me!

you mean this one right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke




Btw how the heck do you end up from the green party to this utter bollocks?

Yeah that's him.

As for how, who knows could be;

1) Madness
2) Drugs
3) Money
4) Attention Seeking

Or any one of a number of other things. Suffice to say its no shock he's been banned and will likely be banned from other places too. He'd have been fine if he'd stuck to his regular posts and such; but he got all the attention over this pandemic and the stupidity surrounding 5D networks.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah that's him.

As for how, who knows could be;

1) Madness
2) Drugs
3) Money
4) Attention Seeking

Or any one of a number of other things. Suffice to say its no shock he's been banned and will likely be banned from other places too. He'd have been fine if he'd stuck to his regular posts and such; but he got all the attention over this pandemic and the stupidity surrounding 5D networks.

TBF tho, considering the attitude of some of Labour in regards to jews i am not as much surprised as i could be.


out of the 4 i say a combination of 2 3 tho.

I think a lot of conspiracy theories are based on a lack of knowledge about science and technology. People assume things are possible in reality that only work in SF stories at best and spy-fi movies at worst.

Red Mercury is a popular conspiracy theory and total BS (and i don't mean ballistic skill) to anyone who knows some science and physics.

5G em transmission creating the corona virus? I already went on a near screaming tirade about that.

HARP? Don't even get me started...

Chemtrails? Oh Puh-leeeeze.

If people understood even a little physics, technology, etc, they'd see a lot of these theories are totally unfeasible if not flat out impossible.

Physics?

Oh but that’s Science. Everyone knows Science are lies!

you need to differ between the creators off conspiracy theory and those that follow.

One has another capability then the other.

 Matt Swain wrote:
I think a lot of conspiracy theories are based on a lack of knowledge about science and technology. People assume things are possible in reality that only work in SF stories at best and spy-fi movies at worst.

Heh, I touched on this. I agree. WHen people visualise 'science' or labs, it's not hard to imagine the citysized structures you see in the resident evil movies or video games and how vaccines can be made, for example with the click of a finger and how all these nefarious organisations 'just do' these things seemingly as easily as they do and without any hassles ('a brilliant scientist just happens to make, and release a Tyrant'). They do it in entertainment because of plot armour. I think people all too readily transfer this and overlay it onto real life.

To be fair things like underground cities mostly don't exist because those who want to do it aren't rich enough and those who are are busy building skyscrapers and palm-leaf shaped housing estates in the sea

 Matt Swain wrote:
I think a lot of conspiracy theories are based on a lack of knowledge about science and technology. People assume things are possible in reality that only work in SF stories at best and spy-fi movies at worst.

Red Mercury is a popular conspiracy theory and total BS (and i don't mean ballistic skill) to anyone who knows some science and physics.

5G em transmission creating the corona virus? I already went on a near screaming tirade about that.

HARP? Don't even get me started...

Chemtrails? Oh Puh-leeeeze.

If people understood even a little physics, technology, etc, they'd see a lot of these theories are totally unfeasible if not flat out impossible.

Me, I tend to think these people watched the old Warner Brother's cartoons. Particularly the ones about the 'house of the future' or even the ones where characters would shut a refrigerator, and a little gnome comes out a hatch and turns the fridge light off.
The people who buy into these conspiracy theories are the people who watched the 'refrigerator light=magic gnomes' cartoons and totally believed it.

 Overread wrote:
To be fair things like underground cities mostly don't exist because those who want to do it aren't rich enough and those who are are busy building skyscrapers and palm-leaf shaped housing estates in the sea

Whistles in the distance.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/in-case-of-emergency_the-forgotten-underground-world-of-swiss-bunkers/42395820

It's possible and also allready done, but also as someone that actually has "lived" in one for military service it's not inherently comfortable or uncomfortable just not a dwelling i reccomend outside of minecraft

Deadnight wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
I think a lot of conspiracy theories are based on a lack of knowledge about science and technology. People assume things are possible in reality that only work in SF stories at best and spy-fi movies at worst.

Heh, I touched on this. I agree. WHen people visualise 'science' or labs, it's not hard to imagine the citysized structures you see in the resident evil movies or video games and how vaccines can be made, for example with the click of a finger and how all these nefarious organisations 'just do' these things seemingly as easily as they do and without any hassles ('a brilliant scientist just happens to make, and release a Tyrant'). They do it in entertainment because of plot armour. I think people all too readily transfer this and overlay it onto real life.

For me, it’s more that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Now I’m a smart guy. My career depends upon my ability to learn and parse information. Yet, in terms of education? I’ve a clutch of 24 year old C Grade GCSE’s.

Amongst those is a ‘double C’ in science. Now, that means I have a very, very basic understanding of Chemsitry, Biology and Physics. Or to be more accurate? I did. Pretty much a lifetime ago.

But I still understand the concept of the scientific method. Everything I learned was based on repeatable experimentation. And I also have a grasp that a good chunk of Proper Science is trying to disprove itself. And as technology marches on, and ever more sophisticated instruments become ever more widespread and accessible? Our collective knowledge as a species can only increase.

Science allows for the Crackpot to be proven right, provided the research is solid, and the result can be replicated by other, possibly less nutty types.

CT’s? Yeah. They’ll take the same ‘qualification’ I do, and consider it comprehensive. And anything more complex than they had at school? Oh that just big confuse word. Done to hoodwink I. But I are smarterererer. Youtube say so’ type thinking.

This is NOT an attack on Teachers, who mostly do a sterling effort getting knowledge into people. But, it may yet be an indictment of the Curriculum they have to teach,

I think it highlights how poorly the education systems around the world are geared up to teach self learning. In fact UK side at least, we don't even encourage nor reward self-learning as a skill until you're at University (and even then its more a 2nd year thing in many subjects where 1st year is a bit like Alevels in that there's often a lot you can achieve with the core reference books - its just more than one "core text book" whilst at school it was typically one per subject).


So for the majority they spend their most formative years not learning how to self learn a subject. So when they start to try they are a high risk of falling into pitfalls of false information online and that leads them down a rabbithole of confusion and they don't even know they are in one let alone how to get out.



This is a problem born of mark schemes. Because the mark scheme system is efficient to mark with its used, but it has a snare built into it. Any student that does self learn within a subject is, at best, liable to pick up no additional points for material outside of the scheme; and at worst could lose points if they present a more modern correct answer/argument, which differs to the mark scheme answer.



So not only are students not really equipped with the skill until Uni, but its discouraged until then anyway. So for many flat-earthers and other almost "anti-science " groups where I tend to notice that they are predominantly students who didn't go to uni for the sciences (perhaps they did and did the arts or they never went); they specifically lack the self learning skills that they need to prove their own theories.

 Overread wrote:
I think it highlights how poorly the education systems around the world are geared up to teach self learning.

I dont know about the UK, but in the US we have a definite problem of allowing certain, unscientific beliefs to be "accepted" as proper scientific answers. Obviously, we don't really need to expand upon that particular rabbit hole, but it goes to show that when the understanding of science that a student may garner in their K-12 career is shaky as feth, it really opens the door to deeper misunderstanding of many other areas of the scientific realm.

 Overread wrote:
I think it highlights how poorly the education systems around the world are geared up to teach self learning. In fact UK side at least, we don't even encourage nor reward self-learning as a skill until you're at University (and even then its more a 2nd year thing in many subjects where 1st year is a bit like Alevels in that there's often a lot you can achieve with the core reference books - its just more than one "core text book" whilst at school it was typically one per subject).


So for the majority they spend their most formative years not learning how to self learn a subject. So when they start to try they are a high risk of falling into pitfalls of false information online and that leads them down a rabbithole of confusion and they don't even know they are in one let alone how to get out.



This is a problem born of mark schemes. Because the mark scheme system is efficient to mark with its used, but it has a snare built into it. Any student that does self learn within a subject is, at best, liable to pick up no additional points for material outside of the scheme; and at worst could lose points if they present a more modern correct answer/argument, which differs to the mark scheme answer.



So not only are students not really equipped with the skill until Uni, but its discouraged until then anyway. So for many flat-earthers and other almost "anti-science " groups where I tend to notice that they are predominantly students who didn't go to uni for the sciences (perhaps they did and did the arts or they never went); they specifically lack the self learning skills that they need to prove their own theories.

As an FE lecturer, all I have to say on the above in regards to self learning is you are asking everyone in the school system to actually be able to perform quite a comprehensive skill that requires high levels of analytical and evaluative skills. That is a mature and high level that usually is only capable from around the age of 15 to be honest.

Additionally, some people actually are incapable of reaching that peak, or well, are in a education system that has to take you in and spit you back out at a certain age within fairly high class sizes of mixed abilities.

If you want to solve it the system has to change, at which point we can teach effectively. a one size fits all system only caters to the middle ground, and quite poorly, it doesn't allow the gifted to flourish and implement the self learning skills you want above, and it doesn't provide the necessary support to learners who need it. I can't tell you how many times I have been frustrated personally in the classroom at the absolute divergence of abilities within a group.

However, your point in bold is genuinely amazing and a debate I had specifically with a lead examiner this year (I am also an examiner for the specific exam). What they wanted as 'perfect score' answer was completely wrong in regards to up to date research in the subject (Sport Science, stuff is always changing...). I was making an argument that an actual correct answer on the subject would have picked up 25% of marks at best, because we are teaching out of date knowledge, that does not reflect current practice (which they would be learning next year at Uni). Crazy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For me, it’s more that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Now I’m a smart guy. My career depends upon my ability to learn and parse information. Yet, in terms of education? I’ve a clutch of 24 year old C Grade GCSE’s.

Amongst those is a ‘double C’ in science. Now, that means I have a very, very basic understanding of Chemsitry, Biology and Physics. Or to be more accurate? I did. Pretty much a lifetime ago.

But I still understand the concept of the scientific method. Everything I learned was based on repeatable experimentation. And I also have a grasp that a good chunk of Proper Science is trying to disprove itself. And as technology marches on, and ever more sophisticated instruments become ever more widespread and accessible? Our collective knowledge as a species can only increase.

Science allows for the Crackpot to be proven right, provided the research is solid, and the result can be replicated by other, possibly less nutty types.

Well, this is where epistemology, I think, is the key. What is at hand is not the content of what you know, per se, the bare fact of what the contents of chemistry or physics are, but rather the manner in which you can take information and parse it against itself to discern what might be a fact and what might not. In other words, collecting seeming facts is largely irrelevant, what you need is the system by which you can discern what is justifiably knowledge and what isn't.

In other words, how does one discern what constitutes justifiable knowledge and what does not? Reading all of a physics book does very little to do this. Which is why any specific knowledge is fairly "useless" in the grand scheme of things. We have collections of facts all over, that is just information. What really matters is the manner in which we can know what to do with this information.

I won't repeat my post from pages ago, but it is why information cascades are a sort of key part of this, most probably. But the sorts of "crippled epistemologies" at hand in trying to justify these sorts of conspiratorial thinking, really reveal what is going on, I think. It's not a question of "low information" necessarily, but rather a whole stance on the role of information and what is justifiable. You could think of it as a manner of "top-down" or "bottom-up" thinking, but also just as confirmation bias run rampant.

But let me digress here, I think my posts are often sorts jargon-gallops as it is...

 H wrote:

snipped for length

This is where I think university education is a huge deal. . . I know at least in the US, university gets a bad rap as a place of "liberal brainwashing", but the truth of the matter is not that they force people to think a certain way, its that they teach you skills that can be used to evaluate sources, which has a tendency to cause people to start leaning a similar direction. Well, at least that's what *I* did in the history department, and I know most of the "social sciences" (sociology, poli-sci, etc) typically work on the same principles when looking at sources.


And, again here in the US, there is this bizarre mistrust of education, and we often seem to celebrate ignorance. Conspiracy theorists thrive in this sort of environment. And I think it shows when you try to trace down the origins of so many conspiracies and they all point to one country.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And, again here in the US, there is this bizarre mistrust of education, and we often seem to celebrate ignorance. Conspiracy theorists thrive in this sort of environment. And I think it shows when you try to trace down the origins of so many conspiracies and they all point to one country.

It's not just the US.

Who can forget Michael Gove's "Britain has had enough of experts"?

https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c

A mere two years after serving as Secretary Of State for bloody Education...