Explain this, you empiricists

[Bozo Erectus]

That is my position; I am open-minded enough to accept the evidence, should it arise. Until then, I will not be swayed by anything but extraordinary evidence.

As I said above:

Until one accepts that something might be true, no evidence will ever be found, either proving, or disproving.

Theres a big difference between 'might be' and 'is'. Your side of the debate seems to be confusing the two. I may not know probability theory, but I know what the definition of 'is' is

 

[warpus]

Until one accepts that something might be true, no evidence will ever be found, either proving, or disproving.

But then the list of "things that might be true, but we'll never know" becomes infinite.

Can cats understand English? Is Zeus moving the planets? Can people read minds? Have aliens visited the Earth in the past and impregnated ancient Egyptians? Do underpants gnomes steal your underwear in a plot to make money?

Who knows.. These things might be true, but they might not.. along with an infinite list of other statements, including "People can see into the future".

How do you seperate the utterly ridiculous from the potentially possible from this long infinite list, if there isn't any evidence at all? You can't. The best you can do is guess.

 

[warpus]

Bozo, anything might be true.

I could be in a matrix-style simulation, put here by my parents, who are superintelligent hyperdimensional beings, to punish me for blowing up a planet that used to orbit Betelgeuse.

To suggest that what I just said might be true, is correct. To suggest that you might be able to peer into the future is correct, also.

However, the list of might be's is inifinite in size and does not help us gain an understanding of the Universe at all. It is best to keep these speculations to ourselves, unless we actually have some reason to believe that we could be right.

There is a system that helps us sort these might-be's into "potential truths" and "probably BS". It is called the scientific method.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But then the list of "things that might be true, but we'll never know" becomes infinite.

Ah, yes, then we're once more in a universe of infinite possibilities. How exhilirating.

Can cats understand English?

Of course they do

Is Zeus moving the planets?

Probably not.

Can people read minds?

Occasionally, under certain circumstances, they may. We should look into it.

Have aliens visited the Earth in the past

Its not completely outside the realm of possibility

and impregnated ancient Egyptians?

That part is extremely unlikely, IMO.

Do underpants gnomes steal your underwear in a plot to make money?

Well, something is making my underwear dissapear. My socks too, damn gnomes

Who knows.. These things might be true, but they might not.. along with an infinite list of other statements, including "People can see into the future".

Isnt it a truly wondrous universe?

How do you seperate the utterly ridiculous from the potentially possible from this long infinite list, if there isn't any evidence at all? You can't. The best you can do is guess.

Not guess, speculate. Until we progress sufficiently to find out one way or another.

For how many thousands of years did some 'crazy' dreamers think that one day, man could fly, or even go to the moon?

 

[warpus]

For how many thousands of years did some 'crazy' dreamers think that one day, man could fly, or even go to the moon?

And for how many thousands of years did some crazy dreamers think that we could land on the sun? Travel back in time? Go to mars and find an alien civilization? End up in hell when we die? Fall off the face of the Earth once you sail far enough? Climb Olympus and meet the Gods?

My point is that it's fine and dandy to have 'crazy' dreams. However, most of them are just that - crazy dreams. Some eventually come true... but we have no idea which ones will and which ones won't - unless we have something to back our theory on.. like evidence.

Without a shred of evidence that's all these crazy dreams are.. crazy dreams.. most likely to not be true. Once you have some evidence though, then your crazy dream moves from the category of 'probably BS' to 'hmm something potentially interesting'.

 

[punkbass2000]

I can read minds and I can prove it.

 

[Rossiya]

I can read minds and I can prove it.

I'm not disproving you, but how?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

For how many thousands of years did some 'crazy' dreamers think that one day, man could fly, or even go to the moon?

Oh yeah, flight. That one's a riot, and Tor Åge Bringsværd Jon Bing (sorry!) pwned it in the Alexandria series.

We quite specifically didn't get to flight by following dreams of flight. That would have given us wing straps and feathers glued on aluminium rims. We got to flight by listening to the scientists who worked out lift over a convex surface, propulsion by fuel combustion, and a bunch of other things.

I can read minds and I can prove it.

Please elaborate, and I may challenge you. There's some information in my head that has a copy on the Internet (so it's verifiable that I'm not changing the requirements) and which is highly obscure (to prevent you googling it). I can make it a multiple-choice or a description question.

 

[Veritass]

I can read minds and I can prove it.

I knew you were going to post that.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And for how many thousands of years did some crazy dreamers think that we could land on the sun?

Yeah, turns out its not possible. So?

Travel back in time?

Unless Im greatly mistooken, the jury might still be out on that one.

Go to mars and find an alien civilization?

Who knows, maybe we'll start digging and end up rudely tumbling into some Martians living room. No really, who the heck knows? Thats the great thing about unexpected things, we dont expect them.

End up in hell when we die?

I doubt it.

Fall off the face of the Earth once you sail far enough?

Our language isnt as colorful as theirs. Today we call it achieving geosynchronous orbit.

Climb Olympus and meet the Gods?

No but its likely we'll climb Mount Olympus and become Gods.

My point is that it's fine and dandy to have 'crazy' dreams. However, most of them are just that - crazy dreams. Some eventually come true... but we have no idea which ones will and which ones won't - unless we have something to back our theory on.. like evidence.

Without a shred of evidence that's all these crazy dreams are.. crazy dreams.. most likely to not be true. Once you have some evidence though, then your crazy dream moves from the category of 'probably BS' to 'hmm something potentially interesting'.

Warpus you seem to believe that evidence comes first, then speculation. Youve got it backwards, IMO.

I can read minds and I can prove it.

I knew you were going to say that.

We quite specifically didn't get to flight by following dreams of flight. That would have given us wing straps and feathers glued on aluminium rims. We got to flight by listening to the scientists who worked out lift over a convex surface, propulsion by fuel combustion, and a bunch of other things.

Why do you think those scientists went to all that trouble? You dont suppose they wanted to fly, do you?

I knew you were going to post that.

I knew youd beat me to it.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Why do you think those scientists went to all that trouble? You dont suppose they wanted to fly, do you?

Are you seriously trying to (mis)attribute every scientific discovery that a plane requires to fly to the desire to fly?

The engine, the aerodynamics, the navigation, the materials...

Even going back to the Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk, the engine it used is a problem, as it was based on the steam engine, which was mostly developed for trains and factories in the Industrial Revolution.

Not to mention that your misattributions will clog up a dozen other dreams that rest on some of these same scientific principles.

I suppose some scientists wanted to fly. I also suppose that the majority of them were doing quite different things, which got incorporated into modern flight.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Are you seriously trying to (mis)attribute every scientific discovery that a plane requires to fly to the desire to fly?

The engine,

You dont need an engine to fly, just big enough wings, and a cliff.

the aerodynamics

Why study aerodynamics if you arent interested in flight?

the navigation,

You mean like eyes?

the materials...

Wood, canvas and rope?

 

[warpus]

Yeah, turns out its not possible. So?

So, a lot of dreams that are based on nothing concrete end up being just that.. dreams, with no basis in reality.

Warpus you seem to believe that evidence comes first, then speculation. Youve got it backwards, IMO.

Not necessarily, but usually, yes.

When men looked up at the sky and wondered if humans could ever fly, they already had evidence that it were possible - they saw other creatures that could fly - birds. When men looked at the moon and wondered whether we could go there, they already had evidence that it exists - they could see it.

Speculation is usually triggered by potential evidence. For example, in our case, it seemed as though you could see into the future. This lead you to believe that perhaps such a thing is possible. However, the next step would be to perform tests and collect evidence that it indeed is possible, so that you could discard the most likely explanation that does not violate any currently established theories of how the Universe operates - this theory being that it was just a coincidence.

Statement A - "It's possible to see into the future"
Statement B - "It's possible to fly by farting"

You seem to say that statement A is more likely to be true than statement B. How come?

I move that they are equally unlikely due to the lack of evidence of both.

 

[mdwh]

See my reply above about coincidence. If you claim something is a coincidence, you should be able to support the claim with evidence (that is not circular). If you cannot support it, then you are no better than those who claim it is a miracle.

It's impossible to prove that it must be coincidence, just as we can't prove there are invisible pixies - that requires as to rule out every other possible cause, as well as causes we don't even know are possible.

But what we can do is show that it is entirely plausible that it was a coincidence. If you want to show it's something else, the burden is upon you to show the evidence.

Examples? Look around you. All of us act irrationally and base other actions solely on anecdotal information.

Yes people are irrational. I'm glad you and I agree that such behaviour is irrational.

People who claim that these dreams are more than coincidence are irrational. That's settled, then.

It has become an OT "tradition" among atheists to equate belief in god to belief in invisible pink teacups. It is a silly and intellectually bankrupt argument designed to make theists appear stupid and an attempt to cut off real discussion.

But no one making this comparison has ever said that believing in invisible pink teacups is silly. Are you mocking the beliefs of people who might believe that? Surely their belief is just as valid as say, belief that unknown magical causes give us dreams which tell us the future?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Perhaps it would if the word "magic" had any real meaning, which it doesn't.

 

[mdwh]

Personally I feel deeply offended when someone claiming that I might believe into elves, teapots, invisible elephants or unicorns.

I don't think anyone's said you believe in elves. The question is, on what basis do you mock the beliefs of someone who might believe such things?

I can mock, if I wish, on the basis that I think it's silly to believe things with no evidence. But what's your basis?

I think it's very telling that on the one hand, people claim their unproven beliefs must be given the utmost respect, but other unproven beliefs are completely ridiculed, and they get outraged if we even mention them.

 

[mdwh]

Perhaps it would if the word "magic" had any real meaning, which it doesn't.

Yes exactly - the problem with all these supposed causes is that they are unknowns, not testable in anyway.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes exactly - the problem with all these supposed causes is that they are unknowns, not testable in anyway.

And the word "magic" means, essentially, "related to any powers or substances that I don't believe exist". So I could refer to any "supernatural (another meaningless word!) elements within any religion other than my own as "magic". All that it says is that the speaker disapproves of something.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No. All the evidence we have about this event seems to suggest that it was a mere coincidence.

What is the evidence for it being a coincidence?

Without any evidence to the contrary, we'll have to make an estimated guess and say that it was most probably a coincidence. When there is evidence to challenge this claim we can examine it and its merits, but until then, we can't say anything else about the event.

There is no "evidence" at all. The proximity of the two events in time and space are what caused BE to wonder about his dream. I agree that there is no evidende to support anything paranormal, but we have never claimed that. Again, what is the evidence for it being just a coincidence? Or don't you have to have any evidence?

It's much like rolling 10 6s in a row with dice that have been shown to be 'fair'. We guess that it was a coincidence and not that invisible elves are putting my dice into place.. nor that I have superpowers and am controlling the dice with my mind.

Is rolling 9 sixes in a row a coincidence? How about 8 or 7 or 6? At what point does rolling sixes not become a coincidence? Could rolling a single six be a coincidence? And if it is not a coincidence, what is it?

The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. I claim that the event we're discussing falls within the already understood framework of the Universe. You claim that it does not.

Close. All events that we are aware of fall within the framework of the observable universe, because we use our senses to detect and process them. People explain those events using the tools at hand. Sometimes they get it right and other times they don't. As new tools come available, new explanations are discovered. In the 15th century the black death was poorly explained. We have a much better understanding of it now, 500 years later. You choose to explain BE dream anecdote using coincidence. All we are saying is that there might be another explanation. In the 15th C people did not have the tools to figure out that "bad air" was not the cause of the black death. Their ignorance did not change how the plague actually spread and killed. They just could not see it. Bozo, C~G and I are unwilling to say that coincidence is the only possible answer.

What are the chances of you having a dream that comes true the next morning? Not very probable, right? But what are the chances of it happening to someone on the planet, considering that ~6.5 billion people are dreaming? It's bound to happen from time to time. In fact, I bet it happens every single day, to someone.

Keeping all this in mind, we now have an explanation for what happened to BE. He's one of the 'lucky' few who happened to have that sort of dream that night. We know that these people exist, given the above calculations.

The above is a totally unfounded piece of fiction. There are only two "facts": 6.5 billion people are around and people dream. All the rest is speculation that you have tried to weave into a plausible story.

Hmm am I misunderstanding something? Are you saying that since things like love exist, that it must be possible for people to see into the future?

No. But I do not rule out that there are probably things about us and our world that we are totally clueless about and one day humans will look back on the 21st century, just like we look back on the 14th century, and laugh at what we thought was true.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's impossible to prove that it must be coincidence, just as we can't prove there are invisible pixies - that requires as to rule out every other possible cause, as well as causes we don't even know are possible.

But what we can do is show that it is entirely plausible that it was a coincidence. If you want to show it's something else, the burden is upon you to show the evidence.

How do you show this plausibility?

But no one making this comparison has ever said that believing in invisible pink teacups is silly. Are you mocking the beliefs of people who might believe that? Surely their belief is just as valid as say, belief that unknown magical causes give us dreams which tell us the future?

Yes I am mocking their beliefs and that without any plausible explanation, claiming dreams tell us the future is worthy of mocking too.