Oxford physicist develops equation to disprove conspiracy theories

David Robert Grimes focuses on conspiracy theories such as mood landing was faked and vaccinations are unsafe, etc


News Desk January 29, 2016
PHOTO: REUTERS / NASA

A physicist at the University of Oxford has claimed to have developed a mathematical equation to scientifically disprove conspiracy theories.

David Robert Grimes focused on four well-known conspiracies for his formula: the mood landing was faked, vaccinations are unsafe, climate change is a lie propagated by scientists, and the cure for cancer is being withheld by big pharma, according a research published in PLOS ONE.

The formula is said to have a potential to measure the success rate of these conspiracies, i.e. how long such a massive cover-up could last before someone blew the lid.

The number of people involved in the conspiracy, the amount of time passed since the event took place and the intrinsic probability of a conspiracy failing have been factored in the formula.

Grimes also tested his formula on conspiracies that ended up being real, including the US government keeping an eye on its own citizen and the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which the cure for syphilis —penicillin— was purposefully withheld from African-Americans by public health officials.

The study concludes it is quite difficult for a conspiracy to remain under wraps for too long as according to Grimes calculations, the moon-landing hoax, which would have involved an estimated 405,000 people, would have unravelled after three years and eight months.



The physicist also estimated the maximum number of people who could be involved in a generic conspiracy before it unravelled. For a conspiracy to last five years, Grimes reckons no more than 2,521 people can take part in it.



This article originally appeared on Quartz.

COMMENTS (7)

Quendex | 8 years ago | Reply There is another piece of David Robert Grimes´ "scientific" work, "String Theory - The Physics of String-Bending and Other Electric Guitar Techniques" (2014), starting with another false pretense: "Electric guitar playing is ubiquitous in practically all modern music genres." It occurs to me, that David Robert Grimes´ perception of the concept of conspiracies is the same as his perception of musical variety - either filtering out what he dislikes or maybe just seeing and hearing the 1960s. The variables of his formula are based on flawed or false assumptions. His approach on conspiracies is naive at best, hardly scratching the surface of information and disinformation in existence. His definition of an exposed conspiracy doesn´t always fit the official accounts, his basic information about allegedly debunked conspiracy theories is incomplete and / or simply false. Also, there seems to be a basic mathematical flaw in the formula. There is another big issue with the work of David Robert Grimes: the attempt to establish conspiracy theories as a belief system and to discredit truthseekers as anti-scientific. It´s part of neurolinguistic permutations of many terms and concepts we can observe in today´s society, the shift of meaning of words and ideas. I don´t call David Robert Grimes an active agent of disinformation. He may be one, but there is also the possibilty, that the work on his formula is simply the attempt of an intelligent man to restore his faith in an obviously corrupt system controlled by obviously malicious liars.
Sexton Blake | 8 years ago | Reply Dear curious2, I have studied statistics and mathematics quite comprehensibly, but find the matters you mentioned somewhat puzzling. I can only presume that you are fortunate enough to have all the facts at your finger tips, or perhaps my problem is lack of common sense. However, I can only say that you had all the bases covered. It must be marvelous for you to have full knowledge of all the facts regarding all the worlds man made mysteries.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ