Explain this, you empiricists

[Birdjaguar]

Is the path of irrational and experiential inquiry of greater or lesser value to the human experience than reason, logic and science?

Short answer? Lesser.

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.

Well I guess if you think life is all about useful application, concrete stuff and keeping people under your thumb, you would be correct. But in any case, this was my favorite part of your post:

At the moment everything you, or anyone siding with you says is essentially meaningless.

Here is where you lay bare your own chains. In your eagerness to make sure that reason is crowned king of all you would deny your very nature and deprive it of meaning and value. All Bozo asked was is there room for wonder and passion to carry meaning into our lives. The shouting down has said "No! Without science and utility there is no meaning." In your dedication to containing and measuring all things small, you have missed what is important and writ large across life, and it is not statistics or math or measuring.

For you Brennan, this spoiler will just be more meaningless crap. I don't suggest you waste your time with it. It is non quantifiable, experiential support for Bozo's anecdote as a meaningful event.

Spoiler :

AND the priestess spoke again and said: Speak to us of Reason and Passion.
And he answered, saying: Your soul is often times a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows---then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky--then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Riffraff posted some and he and I have discussed them. The arguement brought forth was that statistics and probability show that the co incidence of the two events is something one could expect with some reasonable assurance as supported by the math. My postion was that I did not think that you (your side) could show lthis ikely "coincidence" with any degree of proof that you would accept as a scientifically valid standard.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Requiring someone to prove that something is a coincidence is requiring negative proof. One might as well say, "Rigorously disprove that green fuzzy aliens from Pluto have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. You can't? Well, then I guess that issue is open to debate, don't you?" No, I don't.

Yet again you're treating the word "coincidence" as if it indicated a positivist claim and therefore required positive proof. It is a negative claim. The meaning of the null hypothesis has already been explained here... at... excessive... length...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Our objections might become clearer if you were to rephrase this without using the word "coincidence."

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.

You are astute young Taliesin. Coincidence is the word used in opposition to Bozo's post. By definition if two events are coincidental, they are not related. Therefore your side has taken the position that it is reasonable to assume (based on statistics and probability) that two such events are likely to happen in some random fashion and so the events are coincidence. I have never argued that the two events are related, just that you have no evidence that they are infact coincident.

Pontius Pilate I think got my point. My goal all along has been to undermine the notion of assumed coincidence and the more fundamental notion that all events, actions, and observed data are by defintion discrete and unrelated until proven related. None of my purpose, as you know, is to discredit the value of science or its usefulness, it is just to point out its shortcomings and weaknesses.

 

[Norseman2]

To me, the word coincidence is shorthand for "I dont know, but I dont care to pursue the matter" Which leaves us right where we started from.

Coincidence means you don't have enough examples of a case to claim that anything abnormal has occurred. In other words, you haven't even demonstrated a correlation, much less that you magically caused a blackout. And that assumes that this event happened in the first place. It's a huge leap to go from "I had a dream about a blackout, and then I was talking to a friend about it, and then there was a blackout" to "I magically predicted a blackout" or "I magically caused a blackout".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Requiring someone to prove that something is a coincidence is requiring negative proof. One might as well say, "Rigorously disprove that green fuzzy aliens from Pluto have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. You can't? Well, then I guess that issue is open to debate, don't you?" No, I don't.

Yet again you're treating the word "coincidence" as if it indicated a positivist claim and therefore required positive proof. It is a negative claim. The meaning of the null hypothesis has already been explained here... at... excessive... length...

From Wiki...

In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. The use of the null hypothesis is controversial.

Formulation of the null hypothesis is a vital step in statistical significance testing. Having formulated such a hypothesis, one can establish the probability of observing the obtained data or data more different from the prediction of the null hypothesis, if the null hypothesis is true. That probability is what is commonly called the "significance level" of the results.

When a null hypothesis is formed, it is always in contrast to an implicit alternative hypothesis, which is accepted if the observed data values are sufficiently improbable under the null hypothesis. The precise formulation of the null hypothesis has implications for the alternative. For example, if the null hypothesis is that sample A is drawn from a population with the same mean as sample B, the alternative hypothesis is that they come from populations with different means, which can be tested with a two-tailed test of significance. But if the null hypothesis is that sample A is drawn from a population whose mean is lower than the mean of the population from which sample B is drawn, the alternative hypothesis is that sample A comes from a population with a higher mean than the population from which sample B is drawn, which can be tested with a one-tailed test.

Limitations

A null hypothesis is only useful if it is possible to calculate the probability of observing a data set with particular parameters from it. In general it is much harder to be precise about how probable the data would be if the alternative hypothesis is true.

Care to show me the hypothesis test that supports your case? The underlying data would be nice to see too.

 

[warpus]

Requiring someone to prove that something is a coincidence is requiring negative proof. One might as well say, "Rigorously disprove that green fuzzy aliens from Pluto have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. You can't? Well, then I guess that issue is open to debate, don't you?" No, I don't.

Yet again you're treating the word "coincidence" as if it indicated a positivist claim and therefore required positive proof. It is a negative claim. The meaning of the null hypothesis has already been explained here... at... excessive... length...

I haven't been keeping up with this thread - I thought that it died, to be honest... but I'd like to quote this ^^ for truth.

Until a causal relationship between A and B can be shown to exist, we have to assume that A and B are independent events.

In our case (from the OP), there isn't even a working theory supporting such a relationship, strenghtening the argument that the event should be labelled as 'coincidence'.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The use of the null hypothesis is controversial.

No it's not. Take a stat course please: you, and whoever wrote that.

A null hypothesis is only useful if it is possible to calculate the probability of observing a data set with particular parameters from it.

Absolutely true, and as Riffraff showed, it's basically impossible to conceive of a model where Bozo Erectus's dream could be anything other than coincidence. You can dispute the details of his model, but you can't dispute the feasibility of creating a model... all we need is data on dream subject frequencies. You can say that Riffraff's model is skewed by a factor of 10,000 and the model still shows that it is basically an improbably tiny chance that a blackout will occur and nobody will dream about one on the night before.

Until a causal relationship between A and B can be shown to exist, we have to assume that A and B are independent events.

HMMMMMMMMMM. I think that may be too "controversial" a stance for me to endorse. [/pointedsarcasm]

 

[brennan]

All Bozo asked was is there room for wonder and passion to carry meaning into our lives. The shouting down has said "No! Without science and utility there is no meaning." In your dedication to containing and measuring all things small, you have missed what is important and writ large across life, and it is not statistics or math or measuring.

I see; you think that everyone must switch their brain off to experience an emotion - you are quite simply wrong. This is the sort of arrogant tosh I would expect from an 'artist' - valuing their own opinions above anyone else's, as if their own emotions are somehow more important or more deeply felt. What rubbish. scientists are not robots you know. (Before you get steamed and bicker over it needlessly: I am not suggesting that you are an artist, merely comparing your behaviour to that of others.)

I have never argued that the two events are related, just that you have no evidence that they are infact coincident.

And there is your logical fallacy right there. It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no grasp of logic. This is an 'argument from ignorance'. It is also wrong:

We have evidence that both these events can happen: Bozo's dream itself demonstrates that people can dream about power cuts, and I guess that everyone has experienced a power cut, thus we establish that these events can happen. Given that both events can happen, more or less at random, it is obvious that they could both coincide. Since there is no known mechanism for establishing a causal connection between the two, we conclude that Bozo has experienced a 'coincidence' - something to which humans are prone to attach significance, because the human brain is highly adapted to spotting patterns so that it can understand the world around it.

Thus we have evidence that what happened was a 'coincidence'.

On the other hand there has been a total lack of evidence or rational explanation of the repeated claims that this may have been 'more than' a mere coincidence. All we get is arm waving and sophistry.

 

[C~G]

I see; you think that everyone must switch their brain off to experience an emotion - you are quite simply wrong. This is the sort of arrogant tosh I would expect from an 'artist' - valuing their own opinions above anyone else's, as if their own emotions are somehow more important or more deeply felt. What rubbish. scientists are not robots you know. (Before you get steamed and bicker over it needlessly: I am not suggesting that you are an artist, merely comparing your behaviour to that of others.)

I see; you think that everyone must switch their emotions off to experience logic - you are quite simply wrong. This is the sort of arrogant tosh I would expect from a "scientist" - valuing their own opinions above anyone else's, as if their own conclusion are somehow more valid or more reasonable explained. What a rubbish. Artists are not softheads you know. (Before you get steamed and bicker over it needlessly: I am not suggesting that you are a scientist, merely comparing your behaviour to that of others.)

This kind of game for two can be played forever. It changes nothing.

So in other words you are comparing Birdjaguar behaviour to someone others that are arrogant artists but still you claim you aren't suggesting he's such.
Where's the logic in that?

It has been long go since this thread has been anything about Bozo's dream. Since it's been mostly about the scientific method and philosophy of science, and whether they can solve all the issues in the world IF certain events never get studied since they can be always put down by the law of probability even before data for the laws to test is gathered. Which is quite interesting.

 

[brennan]

It has been long go since this thread has been anything about Bozo's dream. Since it's been mostly about the scientific method and philosophy of science, and whether they can solve all the issues in the world IF certain events never get studied since they can be always put down by the law of probability even before data for the laws to test is gathered. Which is quite interesting.

Don't be disingenuous, go see the telephone telepathy thread. These things do get studied and have been studied extensively in the past. The reason science scoffs at such claims is that they are always wrong.

So in other words you are comparing Birdjaguar behaviour to someone others that are arrogant artists but still you claim you aren't suggesting he's such.
Where's the logic in that?

*sigh* I was trying to preempt him moaning that he wasn't actually an artist (something I wasn't intending to suggest), simply to prevent a distraction of the discussion. Yes I compare his comments to the behaviour of some rather self obsessed individuals I have seen. It's perfectly logical. Wish I hadn't bothered now.

 

[C~G]

Don't be disingenuous, go see the telephone telepathy thread. These things do get studied and have been studied extensively in the past. The reason science scoffs at such claims is that they are always wrong.

What?
The problem here is exactly this that you seem to put all "these things" and "such claims" into same basket.
The telepathy thread and Bozo's dream aren't connected phenomena. They can be studied separately. There have been some studies of telepathy but clearly not enough studies of dreams.

Yes I compare his comments to the behaviour of some rather self obsessed individuals I have seen. It's perfectly logical.

It is as logical as comparing people to behaviour which are obsessed with the views of a certain group that think their way of thinking is the most logical one.

Wish I hadn't bothered now.

Good.
Even though I was only pointing about the unfruitnelss of this kind of discussion which I noticed quite long ago.

But now I'm getting tired, I got Déjà vu.

 

[brennan]

There have been some studies of telepathy but clearly not enough studies of dreams.

Why clearly? An assumption. 2 minutes on Wiki shows that it is, of course, wrong.

There has been much scientific research on dreams, and modern theories attempt to explain as many facts found in scientific research as possible. These include:

The cause and purpose of dreams
The content of dreams
The varying frequencies of dreams (more before birth, fewer towards death; increased in premature births, etc.)
The relationship between dreams and depression
The possible evolutionary role of dreaming

It is as logical as comparing people to behaviour which are obsessed with the views of a certain group that think their way of thinking is the most logical one.
Good.
Even though I was only pointing about the unfruitnelss of this kind of discussion which I noticed quite long ago.

But now I'm getting tired, I got Déjà vu.

It shows. I had enough trouble parsing your last post. If you need further explanation please pm me and stop clogging up the thread.

 

[C~G]

Why clearly? An assumption. 2 minutes on Wiki shows that it is, of course, wrong.

Clearly I meant that there haven't been enough study of dreams to make direct conclusions why and how they occur. It needs further study.

And please, I have read example wikiarticle about dreams. That's the whole base (my research about the subject) where I base my opinion on this thread.

It shows. I had enough trouble parsing your last post. If you need further explanation please pm me and stop clogging up the thread.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[warpus]

It has been long go since this thread has been anything about Bozo's dream. Since it's been mostly about the scientific method and philosophy of science, and whether they can solve all the issues in the world IF certain events never get studied since they can be always put down by the law of probability even before data for the laws to test is gathered. Which is quite interesting.

Believe you me, if anyone could find a direct link between dreaming and events that happen in the future - That's a nobel prize right there.

You don't think people have tried coming up with theories for "fantastical claims" such as this? There is plenty of incentive - if you could prove that there is a link - even without having a theory as to how exactly it happens - you'd be instantenously famous. You'd also probably turn half the scientific world upside-down. You'd be a hero.

People have tried, and no link has ever been found. And it's not as though everyone has given up - as the phone telepathy thread shows. Research is being done (if you can call it that, in that case).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The whole thread could be compressed into one question:

Do you believe that enough is known about 'everything', to categorically state that all apparent cases of accurate precognition are nothing but coindidence?

You guys seem to be answering Yes.

 

[C~G]

Yes, I do know that warpus.

If you have read my messages about the subject you might noticed that I at least don't try to imply there's direct link between Bozo's dream and the blackout.

However this doesn't mean there couldn't be a link and personally I encourage the study of "coincidences" as in larger sense because I believe people seem to shut down relevant things as irrelevant while they could afford valuable information not necessarily for the study of prophecies but rather to all fields of science.

That's why I rigorously try to fight against the idea that by using laws of probability and possible mathematical theories (such as riffrafs) could get us anywhere but to the direct and most reasonable explanation that it was just coincidence. The whole point of argument is that the science seems to believe it's own mechanism so profoundly it forgets that there might be things that forever stay in dark since science is blindsided for them.

This greatly reminds me of the denying "oxygen of respectability" from creationists by Gould and Dawkins by never entering with debates with those holding such views as intelligent design. Even though they are claimed to be only timewasting, however my theory is such that darwinist theories need such competition as intelligent design theory because they raise such questions that wouldn't otherwise might ever got answered simply because the question is never asked.

Even though I agree with darwinistic theories there are numerous theories of the methods how evolution happens and only over time we might come closer to the truth. But if we just stick to the "coincidence" or "random factor", we never might have competing theory how it all happens or are there example practical implications behind them.

The study of dreams, how they reflect our reality we live in, is IMHO one of the most instrumental subjects for to study. That's why this kind of "coincidence" is important to study. The denial of such fact seems to for me show that some people think humans are somehow deep down rational beings that are always in control of their own thoughts and can by sight percept things always logically. For such people dreams are probably just random images without any meaning, while I see them as extremely important and valuable subject which show not only our invididualistic view of our reality but about our shared reality as well.

We might believe into what we see, but we also see what we believe into.

 

[warpus]

The whole thread could be compressed into one question:

Do you believe that enough is known about 'everything', to categorically state that all apparent cases of accurate precognition are nothing but coindidence?

You guys seem to be answering Yes.

No, but there is no working theory which would link event A to event B, where event A is a precognition of event B.

Furthermore, many precognition experiments have been performed, and nothing conclusive ever comes of it.

If you want to rewrite our understanding of the Universe, you're going to have to have a pretty solid theory.. instead, you have nothing. Well, you do have a hunch, but that's not nearly enough.

If you want to show a link between two events you are going to have to back it up with proof. Burden of proof lies with you.

 

[warpus]

Yes, I do know that warpus.

If you have read my messages about the subject you might noticed that I at least don't try to imply there's direct link between Bozo's dream and the blackout.

However this doesn't mean there couldn't be a link and personally I encourage the study of "coincidences" as in larger sense because I believe people seem to shut down relevant things as irrelevant while they could afford valuable information not necessarily for the study of prophecies but rather to all fields of science.

That's why I rigorously try to fight against the idea that by using laws of probability and possible mathematical theories (such as riffrafs) could get us anywhere but to the direct and most reasonable explanation that it was just coincidence. The whole point of argument is that the science seems to believe it's own mechanism so profoundly it forgets that there might be things that forever stay in dark since science is blindsided for them.

I don't think you're understanding the issue here.

You are claiming a potential link here, between two events. That's fine, and most sensible scientists would entertain your idea, provided that you can establish this link somehow. If you can't, the two events must be thought of as independent - ie. a coincidence.

Yes, the events could be related somehow - it's possible. Nobody is discounting that. The size of the moon could somehow be dependeont on the colour of Saturn's rings. The amount of water on the Earth could be somehow dependent on the numbef of planets in the Alpha Centauri system. It's possible. However, without any evidence actually linking the two, we are going to have to assume independence/coincidence.

Anything's possible! But unless there exists proof that a relationship exists, it will remain a coincidence.

 

[Eiba]

The whole thread could be compressed into one question:

Do you believe that enough is known about 'everything', to categorically state that all apparent cases of accurate precognition are nothing but coindidence?

You guys seem to be answering Yes.

But, despite how we seem, we aren't. All that's being said is that, given the overwhelming lack of evidence, there's no reason to believe that precognition is anything more than a coincidence.