Data, Information and conspiracy......

Ajnag

Cool, I never knew that this forum existed but now that Im here time for something intresting.....

Did you ever think of the nature of data and information and what each really is?
Just in recent times did I come accross some thoughts on these things in a computing course I was doing. Say we have a database, now that data base is basicly a 2 dimensional matrix, each unit on the matrix is basicly data, it can be a number or a set of characters. So our database consists of this matrix of data, now we could start arguing that each unit of data can also be described as information as it is descriptive of something, but we're trying to hold the entire database in view then its a bit pointless taking that individual data unit as information.

Taken from wikipedia

Meaning of data and information

Data on its own may have no meaning, and only when contextualized (perhaps through interpretation by some kind of data processing system) may it take on meaning and become information. For example, 5551973, a string of digits or a number, is data. When we think of this in the context of a phone number, we then have information: 555-1973 is a phone number.

As it is, the phone number is not actionable - you know it is a phone number, but it is of no use. This information becomes knowledge when you can act on this information, either to solve a problem (for example, to call Helen, whose phone number it is), or to gain insight into an issue (e.g. by noting that other phone numbers have the same exchange).

People or computers can find patterns in and between data to perceive relationships between information, creating or enhancing knowledge. Since knowledge is prerequisite to wisdom, we always want more data and information. But, as modern societies verge on information overload, we especially need better ways to find patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data

So in things like business and so on we have huge wealth's of data, but this data is essentially useless to us unless we can derive information that is helpfull to us from it. But how do we do this, and what information is relevant to our investigation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#Information_as_a_message


Now what happens when we look at conspiracy?
Isnt it true that most people easily accept data as meaningfull information?
And what of data overload, How many of you can verify each individual claim made by those who claim the existance of conspiracy. How many can go retrieve the origional footage or data to independantly verify it.

And then when we are unsure of what we have, why is it so easy for people to take percieved patterns and run with them claiming them as gospel truth?.

In fact is their a psychological link, between conpiracy and religion?
Is it not as if we can chose to create our own reality? our own perception? People belive in things they cant verify all the time, In a way our survival depends on it, You know not to walk in front of a car even if youve never seen someone run over before, every day you make conscious decisions that protect your life.

So now we have a problem.....
Conspiracy can be healthy but it cant be taken as serious information.

What do you do?
Especially when the net allow's people to feed off each others untrue belifes?
If the conpiracy is real, How do you collect and protect your data to present it as relevant information that can be acted on?.

Kernel

Your 'information' (hehe) on data and information is correct, however, as you yourself state in your post, seeing patterns in data is how we form information. So, a non-blinkered person can take the data from news reports (for example) and cross correlate them with other remembered & related data to form a valid conspiracy theory or piece of information. What I suggest you do in order to ensure your information is correct is to research research research the data and the topic - and that is what many good conspiracy researchers do.

The thing about any information is that it can have shades of truth or untruth, depending on many factors. The information you get from CNN has shades of untruth for example, in that the information is interpreted and shown in a favourable spin to the political view or aim of the person who controls the release of information to the people (ie. Murdoch's NEWS CORP in the US).

In a complex and supposedly complete conspiracy theory on UFO or JFK, you can bet that there will also be shades of truth in there, rather than it being complete nonsense, because if it was all complete nonsense, it just wouldn't stand up and it wouldn't be believable anyway. The old disinformation adage stands true: The best way to hide a lie is between two truths.

It's always better to get at the raw data and facts and form your own information, as this will only then be 'coloured' by your own outlook and mindset - which is a good thing if you're a well balanced and developed individual, and a bad thing if you're an extreme personality (eg. paranoid or racist). Once you put your information out, it's up to the people to either accept it, reject it, or modify it to their own paradigms, and in doing so, we hopefully get closer to the truth.

Remember, there is such a thing as truth, and that's what we should aim for. Journalism, for example, should simply present the facts, and not get emotionally involved or interpret the facts, but how often do they fail to adhere to this? And where do they get the data from in the first place.

Kernel

BTW - your post is excellent (and overlooked), perhaps the best in the conspiracy forum, as it gets right down to the crux (or kernel hehe) of the issue, and if you explore it more, it will lead you to other deeper conclusions.

Try this for a starter: Your perception of reality is simply how your brain (through the senses and it's own operation) interprets the data presented to us. Does this make the information we have 'real' or just the information we historically needed for survival. If so, and our brain puts it's own spin on it, then what is reality like at a deeper and more 'real' level?

Ajnag

What I suggest you do in order to ensure your information is correct is to research research research the data and the topic - and that is what many good conspiracy researchers do.

True, but we still are faced with judging who provide's quality in terms of whats presented to us. For example mike rupperts expose of the Valerie plame affair was brilliant and a year later to rupperts credit it pretty much worked out as he saw it. That ones still breaking btw, have a look on www.fromthewilderness.com {sp?}. However despite this Im not sure I can take other claims on the site as credible.

The thing about any information is that it can have shades of truth or untruth, depending on many factors. The information you get from CNN has shades of untruth for example, in that the information is interpreted and shown in a favourable spin to the political view or aim of the person who controls the release of information to the people (ie. Murdoch's NEWS CORP in the US).

Now for an example I love, to counter Murdoch's empire who do we have building his counter alt-empire???
Alex Jones has been busy, His prisionplanet site is churning out articles daily in response to events as they happen. Information has become cheap, and that too has both negative and positive consequences for the truth. Here's an article that was posted on another forum I freqenent : http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/15/3fdd7fd338454

Sadly what gets me is that now we have numerous people on line who think your a sheep for not agreeing with alex jones, this is a pity as the screams drown out those who apply a healthy dose of skeptisim to all their media intake.

It's always better to get at the raw data and facts and form your own information, as this will only then be 'coloured' by your own outlook and mindset - which is a good thing if you're a well balanced and developed individual, and a bad thing if you're an extreme personality (eg. paranoid or racist). Once you put your information out, it's up to the people to either accept it, reject it, or modify it to their own paradigms, and in doing so, we hopefully get closer to the truth.

Remember, there is such a thing as truth, and that's what we should aim for. Journalism, for example, should simply present the facts, and not get emotionally involved or interpret the facts, but how often do they fail to adhere to this? And where do they get the data from in the first place.

I pretty much agree with everything your saying, but in the face of data and information overload and the trouble in verifying everything, Im almost starting to think that seeking questions rather then awnsers may be a way forward. Asking a good question is almost as hard to refute as a good truth, manys a politician who has been brought down by asking the right question. But I am muddling things here arent i, seeing as any good investigator has to begin with good questions. But maybe that is what Im seeing in terms of modern day conspiracy, good questions are being replaced with wild assertions.

BTW - your post is excellent (and overlooked), perhaps the best in the conspiracy forum, as it gets right down to the crux (or kernel hehe) of the issue, and if you explore it more, it will lead you to other deeper conclusions.

Dare I mention the shell of the issue? Thanks tho, I return the complement, My problem at times is that I can be good at starting these disscussions but then find it hard to carry through, thats why good replys are welcome.

Try this for a starter: Your perception of reality is simply how your brain (through the senses and it's own operation) interprets the data presented to us. Does this make the information we have 'real' or just the information we historically needed for survival. If so, and our brain puts it's own spin on it, then what is reality like at a deeper and more 'real' level?

I hope youve seen john carpenters Darkstar, the scene at the end is classic, they have to try and explain that to an intelligent bomb. Well worth a look if you get the chance. But lets not get too abstract or we'll end up in philosphy

To the conspiracy fans here in the forum, Id reccomend looking up smedly butlers "war is a racket" and the story of how the chairmen of large companys attempted a coup to install a nazi govt in the us. Its funny that a very real conpiracy such as this pass's under the radar.

stevenmu

Ajnag wrote:

Now what happens when we look at conspiracy?
Isnt it true that most people easily accept data as meaningfull information?
And what of data overload, How many of you can verify each individual claim made by those who claim the existance of conspiracy. How many can go retrieve the origional footage or data to independantly verify it.

And then when we are unsure of what we have, why is it so easy for people to take percieved patterns and run with them claiming them as gospel truth?.

The problem often is, that with so much data available on topics it's easy to find patterns that can point to all sorts of conclusions. As you point out there's often so much data available that it reaches a point of overload. When this happens people have to filter out what they think is relevant or irrelevant, and people naturally tend to include data which supports there line of thinking, and reject data which doesn't. In particular, when a pattern has been percieved, data which matches that pattern seems much more signifigant and relevant than data which does not. This allows someone presenting a conspiracy theory to show patterns and data which enevitably lead people to the same conclusions.

The of course there's the problem of the authenticity of the data. There's a theory (which is probably a fully fledged conspiracy theory in it's own right) that the US Air Force encouraged the reports of crashed UFOs and alien bodies at Roswell to cover up the testing of top secret planes, and of course soon after Roswell there was UFO sightings everywhere. Whether it's true or not, it show how deliberatly inserted false data can spawn a pattern.