Eiba
Warlord
With emphasis on 'representations' (i.e. not exact reproductions), yes I am.Birdjaguar said:
Are you saying that's not the case?
Explain this, you empiricists
- Thread starter Bozo Erectus
- Start date
Are you saying that's not the case?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Yes. I sent him a PM, but he posted here and didn't reply, so I went ahead and posted a rough test.chrisrossi said:
Feel free to try googling it...
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Simple:Birdjaguar said:
1) People can dream about power cuts.
2) Power cuts can occur.
3) These 2 events may happen at roughly the same time, thus CO-INCIDE, and be a coincidence. (What makes a coincidence is that more than one event happens at the same time.)
Clever huh?
Feel free to dispute any of these points.
With regard to your bickering about probability: Yes it is a useful model for predicting the behaviour of the universe. Probability theory has a place in Quantum Mechanics and works very well. Many people on this site use it almost daily when they play games involving dice or cards - games which demonstrate the success of probability theory millions of times over every day worldwide.
With regard to all the science bashers: Science is not some close-minded little community, it welcomes and is stimulated by new ideas. Many of the truths we cherish today have come about due to some extraordinary paradigm shift in thinking, for example the notion of Deep Geologic Time was dangerously revolutionary in its day. However bear in mind that old scientific ideas are not 'proved wrong' by new ones - when Einstein's Relativity was found to be correct nobody threw Newtonian Mechanics in the bin, no-one ever said he was wrong, what happened was merely that his mechanics was found to be a sort of special case - in which if you make a certain set of assumptions his results agree with Einsteinian relativity. Newton is all NASA needed to get to the moon.
With that borne in mind we have to note that any new models or theories that come along will have to explain why the old theories are so sucessful, it is unlikely (even implausible) that the next Theory of Everything is going to come along and be so radical that it somehow 'overturns' our current science in the way some people seem to be assuming, rather it will be a subtle thing and will explain many of the assumptions we already make.
Not if you only see everything as a human value of philosophy. Maybe humans not only need coincidences but 'specifics' as well. We are creatures capable of great imagination, this nature to find coincidences in life could be just another survival instinct built into ourself. Little did I know I would enter a debate and point out it is the need for something old, unnew, same or whatever value that still enchants us.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Indeed, coincidences are important - when you can show that they are not mere coincidences, but are actually causally linked - this is what science does. That is not the case here.Millman said:
What do you mean, that it actually happened. Ok, I'll reread Bozo's question.
I think we need coincidences to appreciate the value of itself. Maybe we are taking the word 'empirical' out of context. That could also be a human value. Ever try looking at it from a non-human value?
The next thing you know, someone will create a topic on points of view, that is simply putting what each of us already do.
I should put more thought into this instead of editing it a whole bunch of times. But a human value like coincidence isn't empirical. People do and/or believe things that aren't true all the time. Some people believe politicians.
I think we need coincidences to appreciate the value of itself. Maybe we are taking the word 'empirical' out of context. That could also be a human value. Ever try looking at it from a non-human value?
The next thing you know, someone will create a topic on points of view, that is simply putting what each of us already do.
I should put more thought into this instead of editing it a whole bunch of times. But a human value like coincidence isn't empirical. People do and/or believe things that aren't true all the time. Some people believe politicians.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Spotting patterns is what allows humans to understand the world around them - and it is what drives scientific understanding. The problem here is that people are reading meaning into a pattern that they perceive without thinking rigorously about it.
Coincidences happen simply because they can, and we can predict that many coincidences are likely to occur, for example the coincidence of Bozo's dream and an actual power cut. The mistake is to read significance into the coincidence, which is indeed a human failing - and a necessary one.
Take the example of dice rolling - if you roll a 6 and the person next to you rolls a 6 then we would call that a coincidence, but this event has no significance at all. It is statistically just as likely to occur as any other result - say you rolling a 1 and your neighbour a 4. Now if you could demonstrate that there was a significance - for example that the odds of your neighbour rolling a 6 increased just after you had rolled one - then the result would be interesting, however that is not the case here. The result is picked as remarkable simply because it happened with absolutely no support for the suggestion that it was somehow 'more than' a mere coincidence.
Coincidences happen simply because they can, and we can predict that many coincidences are likely to occur, for example the coincidence of Bozo's dream and an actual power cut. The mistake is to read significance into the coincidence, which is indeed a human failing - and a necessary one.
Take the example of dice rolling - if you roll a 6 and the person next to you rolls a 6 then we would call that a coincidence, but this event has no significance at all. It is statistically just as likely to occur as any other result - say you rolling a 1 and your neighbour a 4. Now if you could demonstrate that there was a significance - for example that the odds of your neighbour rolling a 6 increased just after you had rolled one - then the result would be interesting, however that is not the case here. The result is picked as remarkable simply because it happened with absolutely no support for the suggestion that it was somehow 'more than' a mere coincidence.
Statistical modeling can be very useful, can be very wrong and can be very easily manipulated. Statistics, like words, serve their masters.Eiba said:
I do not see statistics as perveyors of "truth", but rather as sign posts that are useful in clarifying direction or position relative to other things. In the US the SAT is a measure of ones "intellectual capabilities and education". It locates an individual among others on a scale. But it is not a comprehensive picture of the person and is quite one dimensional. It certainly does not represent "truth" of any sort. Some people find it useful because it is readily available and there is a lack of other, better measures. Like any tool statistics has a place in analytic endeavors, but IMO its value is overblown and it is too often misused and misunderstood.
So, show us how the statistics here could be manipulated. Are you suggesting that dreams are much rarer, or that powercuts are much rarer?Birdjaguar said:
Anyhow, if you want to claim this is more than a coincidence, the burden is upon you to show us what the probability of this happening through chance was, and show the probability to be tiny. If you aren't even willing to consider statistics, then there's no evidence for us to even respond to.
OK, so any two things that happen at the same time are co-incident which means all events and actions everywhere at all times co-incide with some other event. Yes, I am impressed with your cleverness.brennan said:
Coincidence in our discussion has a slightly different meaning: that the two or more events that happen in proximity have no apparent relationship other than the fact that they happen in proximity to one another.
One group (lets call it A) of posters says that unless a relationship can be demonstrated no relationship exists. They also say that probability "proves" that all posible combinations of events will at some point take place.
Another group, B, (to which I belong) says that just because we cannot observe and document a relationship does not mean one does not exist.
At least one member of group A recognizes that it is an essential and fundamental tenant of science that "all" events are distinct data points and should not be connected or related without some evidence. Usefulness in a science environment comes from making connections that are supported by observations. The first group, A, does not see any value or usefulness of the second group's position since it does not further additional science or rational inquiry. Show evidence for the connection and they will be interested.
This is really the crux of the matter: is there value added to surviving/prospering in the human condition through non rational, non scientific, paths of inquiry and experience? Is the path of irrational and experiential inquiry of greater or lesser value to the human experience than reason, logic and science?
How would each of you answer this question?
Yes probability has uses in games and science. It is very much less useful in dealing with other people.brennan said:
No one in this thread has been bashing science.brennan said:
Show me the statistics or calculations or whatever you have as data and I will show you how they could be wrong. How many people dream of powercuts? How many on a given night? How many powercuts are there on a given day? Where is the math? What are your assumptions and can they be supported with actual data?mdwh said:
Again, no one is claiming that the supernatural is at work here.mdwh said:
Birdjaguar said:
I think you'll hardly find any data concerning the likelyhood of dreaming about powercuts, for obvious reasons. So as hard data doesnt exist, you have to make assumptions (reasonable ones
)Once again i refer to the calculation i made a few pages earlier, where I assumed that on average every second person dreams about a blackout once in there life. I also made the assumption, that this can happen on any day of his life (please leave children or so out of this). If you put this together, it turns out the chances of dreaming about blackouts on any day is 1/60,000
Obviously I took this number out of my ass - but I think you'll agree that it isn't a completely insane assumption and that the 'true' value will be somewhere within a factor 10 or even 100. If you do the maths you'll find that the probability stay well away, from anything zhat can be considered miraculous.
I too can make up a number that I can claim is "reasonable", but without any single element that relates to reality it is nothing more than my attempt to create imaginary reasonableness. But I do appreciate your truthfulness about where the numbers came from.Riffraff said:I think you'll hardly find any data concerning the likelyhood of dreaming about powercuts, for obvious reasons. So as hard data doesnt exist, you have to make assumptions (reasonable ones
Once again i refer to the calculation i made a few pages earlier, where I assumed that on average every second person dreams about a blackout once in there life. I also made the assumption, that this can happen on any day of his life (please leave children or so out of this). If you put this together, it turns out the chances of dreaming about blackouts on any day is 1/60,000
Obviously I took this number out of my ass - but I think you'll agree that it isn't a completely insane assumption and that the 'true' value will be somewhere within a factor 10 or even 100. If you do the maths you'll find that the probability stay well away, from anything zhat can be considered miraculous.
EDIT: I have never had a dream that I remember involving power outages. Maybe we need an OT poll to check the validity of your 1 in 2 guess. Do you think OTers would lie in such a poll?
Birdjaguar said:I too can make up a number that I can claim is "reasonable", but without any single element that relates to reality it is nothing more than my attempt to create imaginary reasonableness. But I do appreciate your truthfulness about where the numbers came from.
thats why i said you can multiply or divide the number by 100 and the calculation still wields significant results...
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Short answer? Lesser.Birdjaguar said:
Irrational, experiencial inquiry, as you put it, is of value when it leads to something concrete - you may see a connection/correlation/pattern subconsiously that leads to further, useful study; this is an important part of scientific research, not to mention criminal investigation - what you might think of as a 'gut feeling' way of doing things that some people seem to have.
What is happening here though seems to be that a totally random coincidence has been plucked out of the air and stuck on a pedestal. There has not even been an attempt to demonstrate any significance in Bozo's dream. It is such thoughtless armwaving that muddies the waters and leads to people believing in astrology and homeopathy - usually in the face of any actual evidence.
By all means suggest that Bozo is psychic, or that anyone is psychic, and we'll debunk the idea sharpish. At the moment everything you, or anyone siding with you says is essentially meaningless.
I suspect that the events might have significance to Bozo and are an unusual combination even if not evidence of suprenatural stuff. The whole statistical bit came out of your side trying to prove that the two events were just coincidence. And it has been very evident, the statistics brought forth are unfounded at best.mdwh said:
Our objections might become clearer if you were to rephrase this without using the word "coincidence."Birdjaguar said:I suspect that the events might have significance to Bozo and are an unusual combination even if not evidence of suprenatural stuff. The whole statistical bit came out of your side trying to prove that the two events were just coincidence. And it has been very evident, the statistics brought forth are unfounded at best.
The whole statistical bit came out of your side trying to prove the lack of a causal relationship between the two events.
If that's the burden you (speaking generally here) expect us to shoulder in the debate, it's no wonder you haven't been convinced of anything. It is impossible to prove (beyond simply applying standards of reasonableness, i.e. statistics) that two things are not causally related.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Perhaps you would care to point out the statistics that were 'brought forth'? We have repeatedly stated that such a coincidence is not really even surprising, let alone special. If you want to make a claim about the significance of this situation then by all means do so - and without trying to shift the burden of proof onto us.Birdjaguar said:I suspect that the events might have significance to Bozo and are an unusual combination even if not evidence of suprenatural stuff. The whole statistical bit came out of your side trying to prove that the two events were just coincidence. And it has been very evident, the statistics brought forth are unfounded at best.
