So there I am on Facebook scrolling my feed, the source of Truth. I came across a notorious character in the Utah tech scene. His name is Dave Bateman. I have only met him briefly in large groups and had a few exchanges with him on Messenger. He has only been kind to me so I choose to not posit much about who he is as a person. Google will allow you to go deep on his very public opinions and statements.
What I want to focus on is the discussion that was taking place when he posted this about the earth being flat. People were throwing out comments that make sense to my mind for both sides of the argument. I realized that David Bateman has possibly had a real lack of friends who can tell him what he may not like to hear. He and his billions of dollars has most likely isolated him from taking feedback. He is believing his own bullshit. This post does tell you to do a deep dive, and I liked that process. But the comments make it seem that he is fully a into the idea that earth is flat, or he is toying with all his followers. Both are cool. But you know what would be real cool? Using human intelligence to solve actual problems.
I have love for him, just as I do every single person on earth. I want him to have the most happiness he can have. So if he gets it from being a flat earth believer, I don’t need to interrupt his flow and try hard to not pass judgement. People get off on all types of thinking that can be illogical or contrary to everyone else. I know I do. I feel for Dave, because I am very much like him. I struggle with the story of 9/11 and how it all went down. I don’t dig into it much anymore because it doesn’t really add up for me. It makes people very upset when you bring up ideas that they don’t even want to process for the sake of processing.
What I love about Dave Bateman is that he says stuff. What is also important is that he is allowed to say stuff freely. It seems to me we are supposed to say things and learn from it. He has said things that have “got him in trouble”. Things he said netted him billions of USD. If there is a lesson I learn, it’s to not fear saying things. Do not fear haters. Don’t fear anything.
BUT!!! It serves less people if you are saying things that are potentially false. I can’t even imagine the results of winning the flat earth argument. It changes nothing about how we live. The earth is flat. Now what?
So as I am writing this, I was inspired to see what AI thinks about all these topics. It so quickly talks to me in a way that feels correct. I am inclined to listen to people who argue points and are aided by other humans and AI. This is the end of my writing today. But, if you are curious, below is my convo that convinced me to just settle my curiosity on flat earth and 9/11. It also is unlikely that Jesus was resurrected, but I am going to keep believing that one for a bit, it’s way fun to think we can die and come back.
Happy 4:20 Mfers I love so dearly,
SP
You
Many believe the earth is flat. What is the the percentage chance after looking at all the data, that the earth is in fact flat?
ChatGPT
Hey Scott, I'm Phil, and I'm here to dive into this with you. So, about the flat Earth theory—let's break it down. When you look at all the scientific data and evidence collected over centuries, from ancient Greek astronomy to modern space exploration, the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of a spherical Earth. We're talking about photos from space, the way ships disappear over the horizon, and how different constellations are visible from different parts of the world, among tons of other evidence.
If we were to put a number on the percentage chance that the Earth is flat after considering all the legitimate data, it would be effectively 0%. The evidence supporting a spherical Earth is just too strong and too consistent across different fields of science, like physics, astronomy, and geology. The flat Earth theory, while fascinating as a discussion on belief and skepticism, doesn't hold up against the mountain of evidence for a round Earth. So, in the realm of science and evidence-based belief, the Earth being flat is more of a thought experiment than a plausible reality.
You
What is the most compelling evidence that flat earth theory uses to convince people of its validity?
ChatGPT
Alright, diving into the flat Earth perspective, they do bring up a few points that they find compelling. It's interesting to see what fuels their arguments, even though these points have been widely debunked by scientific evidence. Here are a few of their main arguments:
Perception of Flatness: One of the most common arguments is the simple observation that when you look around, the Earth appears flat. From the ground level, landscapes look flat, and the horizon appears as a straight line, which they argue wouldn't be the case if the Earth were a sphere.
Water's Surface: Flat Earthers often point out that water surfaces, like those of lakes and oceans, appear flat rather than curved, arguing that this is evidence against the Earth's curvature. They suggest that if the Earth were truly a globe, we should be able to see noticeable curvature over distances.
No Observable Curvature: They claim that no matter how high you go, the horizon always rises to eye level, which they argue wouldn't happen if the Earth were spherical. This is often cited alongside claims that pilots and engineers don't account for curvature in their calculations, which isn't accurate.
Gravity and the Motion of Celestial Bodies: Flat Earth proponents often question the science behind gravity and the motion of planets and stars. They propose alternative explanations for observable phenomena, like the movement of the sun and stars, that fit within a flat Earth model.
NASA and Space Exploration Skepticism: A significant portion of flat Earth theory involves skepticism towards NASA and other space agencies. They argue that photos and videos of the Earth from space could be fabricated or altered. This distrust extends to questioning the validity of satellite data and space exploration findings.
It's crucial to note that these arguments, while compelling to some, have been thoroughly debunked through centuries of scientific research and empirical evidence. For example, the curvature of the Earth can be observed through phenomena like the disappearance of ships below the horizon, the way different constellations are visible from different latitudes, and, of course, images and data collected from space. The principles of physics, as understood through the scientific method, also provide clear explanations for the Earth's shape, gravity, and the motion of celestial bodies.
Engaging with these theories can be a fascinating exercise in critical thinking and understanding the scientific method's role in discerning truth from belief.
You
How can very intelligent people believe this?
ChatGPT
It's a head-scratcher, right? How can very intelligent people believe in something like the flat Earth theory, especially when there's a mountain of evidence supporting a spherical Earth? This phenomenon isn't just limited to the flat Earth theory; it spans various beliefs that contradict established scientific consensus. Here are a few reasons why this happens:
Cognitive Bias: Everyone has cognitive biases that can warp our perception of reality. Intelligent people are not immune to this. Confirmation bias, for example, leads people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions, regardless of whether the information is true.
Distrust in Authorities: Some intelligent individuals may have a deep-seated distrust of mainstream scientific communities and governmental organizations. This skepticism can lead them to reject widely accepted scientific facts in favor of alternative theories that align with their distrust.
Intellectual Overconfidence: High intelligence can sometimes lead to overconfidence in one's own reasoning abilities. This might result in a belief that they can see truths that others cannot, leading them down the path of contrarian beliefs like the flat Earth theory.
Echo Chambers: With the internet, it's easier than ever to find a community of like-minded individuals who reinforce each other's beliefs, no matter how unconventional. Intelligent people can fall into these echo chambers, where their ideas are never challenged, thus reinforcing their beliefs.
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories: For some, believing in conspiracy theories like the flat Earth offers a sense of superiority—the idea that they are among the few who see "the truth" that others can't. This can be appealing to anyone, including those who are highly intelligent, as it provides a sense of exclusivity and insight.
Misapplication of Critical Thinking: Sometimes, intelligent individuals apply critical thinking in a way that paradoxically leads them away from scientific consensus. They may find flaws in arguments for a spherical Earth (often due to misunderstandings or misinformation) and see these flaws as evidence supporting the flat Earth theory.
Identity and Belonging: Beliefs, especially controversial ones, can become a significant part of one's identity. For some intelligent people, the flat Earth theory might not just be about the shape of the Earth but about being part of a community that challenges the status quo, which can be a powerful motivator.
Understanding why intelligent people might believe in the flat Earth theory requires a nuanced view of human psychology, social dynamics, and the complexities of belief systems. It's a reminder that intelligence is not a safeguard against erroneous beliefs and that critical thinking skills, scientific literacy, and openness to evidence are crucial for discerning truth.
You
Is there a chance that you could help me understand if a man named Jesus was resurrected from the dead? What is the likelihood in percentage chance that it's a real event?
ChatGPT
Tackling the question of Jesus' resurrection and trying to assign a percentage chance to its historical accuracy is a unique challenge. This event, central to Christian faith, is deeply rooted in religious belief and historical documents, primarily the New Testament of the Bible. Unlike questions that can be addressed with empirical scientific evidence, the resurrection is a matter of faith and historical interpretation.
Historical and Faith Perspectives
Historical Documents: The primary sources of information about Jesus' life and resurrection are the Gospels in the New Testament. These texts were written by followers of Jesus, decades after his death. Historians analyze these documents for historical context but often debate their reliability as eyewitness accounts.
Faith and Belief: For billions of Christians worldwide, the resurrection of Jesus is a core truth based on faith. This belief isn't grounded in the empirical evidence that science demands but in spiritual conviction and the interpretative reading of religious texts.
Scholarly Analysis: Scholars and historians have long debated the historicity of events described in religious texts. Some argue that the resurrection, as a miraculous event, falls outside the purview of historical analysis because it cannot be tested or verified using the tools of history or science.
Miracles and Probability: Assigning a probability to a miracle, by definition, is challenging. Miracles are considered events that defy natural explanation and, as such, don't fit neatly into statistical models of likelihood.
The Challenge of Assigning a Percentage
Given these considerations, trying to assign a percentage chance to the resurrection being a real historical event is not straightforward. It largely depends on one's perspective:
From a faith perspective, the resurrection is a certainty, integral to the Christian belief system.
From a historical or scientific perspective, evidence for the resurrection is primarily documented in religious texts, making empirical verification or statistical analysis difficult.
Conclusion
The question of Jesus' resurrection transcends the realm of empirical evidence and enters the domain of personal belief and faith. For those who believe, no proof is necessary, and for those who don't, no proof might ever be enough. In the context of faith, the resurrection is a matter of spiritual conviction rather than empirical probability.
You
Ok, well I died and was dead for 3 days. Now I am back. What's the probability that I am telling the truth?
ChatGPT
Alright, let's approach this with a blend of open-mindedness and a bit of critical thinking. When someone claims to have died and then returned after three days, from a scientific and medical standpoint, it's highly improbable. Modern medical understanding defines death as the point at which the brain stops functioning, and after a very short period without oxygen, brain damage is irreversible. After three days, the body undergoes significant decomposition, making a return to life as we understand it impossible by current scientific standards.
However, there are stories and claims throughout history of people being "brought back to life" after being declared dead, often attributed to misdiagnoses of death or miraculous recoveries that defy medical explanation. These cases are exceptionally rare and usually involve circumstances where the initial diagnosis of death was incorrect due to a variety of possible factors (like coma states, hypothermia, etc.) rather than actual death as medically and scientifically defined.
Evaluating the Claim
Medical Misdiagnosis: If we're talking about a scenario where someone was mistakenly declared dead and then "came back to life," it's crucial to consider the conditions that might lead to such a misdiagnosis. Modern medical equipment and practices have made such mistakes increasingly rare, but not impossible.
Miraculous Claims: From a religious or spiritual perspective, resurrection is a miracle and thus outside the realm of scientific explanation. Such claims are matters of faith.
Probability: If we strictly adhere to scientific understanding and empirical evidence, the probability of someone actually dying (as in, cessation of brain function) and then returning to life after three days under current medical knowledge is effectively 0%.
Verifying the Claim: Verifying such a claim would require substantial evidence, including medical records detailing the death and subsequent signs of life, along with credible eyewitness accounts and possibly even video documentation.
Conclusion
While it's fascinating to entertain miraculous claims, and while I'm all for keeping an open mind, the scientific and medical communities require empirical evidence to validate such extraordinary claims. Without concrete evidence, from a scientific perspective, the probability of the claim being true as described (actual death followed by a return to life after three days) remains exceedingly low based on what we currently understand about biology and the nature of death.
You
my last question. What is the probability that 9/11 and the towers coming down was assisted by insiders?
ChatGPT
The question of insider involvement in the events of September 11, 2001, has been a topic of speculation, conspiracy theories, and extensive investigation. To address the probability of such a scenario, it's important to differentiate between verified facts, credible evidence, and speculation.
Official Investigations and Findings
The official account of the 9/11 attacks, as concluded by the 9/11 Commission Report and supported by multiple investigations (including those by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology), found that the attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists from the extremist group al-Qaeda. These investigations involved extensive analysis of the events leading up to the attacks, the day of the attacks themselves, and the aftermath.
Insider Involvement Theories
Theories suggesting insider involvement typically fall under the umbrella of conspiracy theories. These theories range widely in specifics but often suggest that individuals within the U.S. government or other institutions had foreknowledge of the attacks and either facilitated them or allowed them to happen.
Evaluating the Probability
Evidence and Credibility: The probability of any claim, including those about insider involvement in 9/11, depends heavily on the credibility and weight of the evidence supporting it. To date, the majority of credible investigations have not supported the theory of insider involvement, instead pointing to a failure of intelligence and communication between agencies as contributing factors to the tragedy.
Conspiracy Theory Dynamics: It's important to understand the dynamics of conspiracy theories. They often arise in the wake of major, traumatic events, partly due to the human need to find meaning and assign blame in the face of tragedy. While they can raise legitimate questions, they can also spread misinformation and unfounded speculation.
Critical Thinking and Evidence: Applying critical thinking means evaluating the sources of information, the quality of evidence presented, and the logical coherence of the arguments made. In the case of 9/11, the overwhelming consensus among experts, based on extensive investigation and evidence, does not support the theory of insider assistance.
Conclusion
Given the extensive investigations and lack of credible evidence supporting the theory of insider involvement, the probability of such a scenario, based on the information available to the public and the conclusions of official reports, is considered very low by experts in the field. It's crucial, however, to remain open to credible new evidence should it emerge and to apply critical thinking to all claims, especially those surrounding events of significant historical impact.
You
But what percentage?
ChatGPT
Assigning a precise percentage to the likelihood of insider involvement in the events of 9/11, based on the framework of scientific evidence and official investigations, is challenging due to the nature of the evidence and the complexity of the event. Official reports and investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report, have not substantiated claims of insider involvement, focusing instead on the actions of al-Qaeda terrorists and identifying failures in intelligence and communication.
Given the lack of credible evidence supporting insider involvement theories and the conclusions of these comprehensive investigations, if one were to attempt to quantify this in terms of probability, it would be extremely low. However, without a direct way to calculate such a probability scientifically or statistically, it's not feasible to provide a specific percentage that accurately reflects the consensus of expert investigations and analyses.
Interesting how it resisted giving you a percentage for all the other topics but had no problem offering up a big fat 0% for flat earth theory. Just an observation.
Great job forcing ChatGPT to assign probability percentages. It doesn't like to do it, and neither do humans. For an interesting read on why this is important, check out (ChatGPT it), Superforecasters, by Philip Tetlock, Chapters 5 and 6. There's a great story about how US security groups were imprecise in their language and how that caused issues ("There is a high likelihood of WMD in Iraq" vs "There is a 60% likelihood of WMD in Iraq").