Explain this, you empiricists

[brennan]

No, they may very well have significance to themselves. An object need not matter to humans for it to matter at all. That was the point of the post I made before; not that we need to act as though something exists which leaves no trace we can detect, just that we are not therefore able to judge conclusively on its existence.

I am quite happy not speculating about such things, and I recommend you waste no time doing so as well. Come back when you can detect some trace of these things and i'll happily talk about them. Until then this discussion is not actually about anything AFAI can see.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure it is; we have to be more prepared when the invisible pink unicorns decied to show themselves, right?

 

[Phlegmak]

I am quite happy not speculating about such things, and I recommend you waste no time doing so as well. Come back when you can detect some trace of these things and i'll happily talk about them. Until then this discussion is not actually about anything AFAI can see.

brennan and I are of one mind. Coincidence? Only in your dreams.

 

[brennan]

My long lost soulmate! *hugs Phlegmak*

 

[Corlindale]

No, they may very well have significance to themselves. An object need not matter to humans for it to matter at all. That was the point of the post I made before; not that we need to act as though something exists which leaves no trace we can detect, just that we are not therefore able to judge conclusively on its existence.

I think most of us would agree that things beyond human understanding might exist, but that does mean that we can or should assume they do. There's just no point doing it. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but it is equally impossible to prove the existence if we are talking things outside human perception.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Quite, I am not arguing that we believe in such things. (I believe in God because I believe He has produced effects in my life.) Just that we cannot say with finality that they are not there, that's all. And we are certainly being rational if we act as though they are not there, but we may be surprised down the road some day.

 

[Taliesin]

To C~G and friends:

"Bozo having clairvoyant predictive power" and "Bozo happening to have a dream which becomes relevant" are both possible interpretations of this single event, so they are not distinguishable on the basis of this single event. If Bozo were to have seemingly clairvoyant dreams every night, or every Monday, it would certainly strain credulity to suppose that it were coincidental. However, he doesn't, and we have only the single event to go on.

That being the case, we presume to be correct the explanation which doesn't require us to overthrow our concept of the physical world. We still recognise that, on the basis of the data, the paranormal explanation of your choice is possible; but there is no reason to suppose it to be true.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, that is the best thing anyone has said so far.

 

[warpus]

That is probably how someone who is starting to study some subject might think at first. Even if I would have such theory I wouldn't try to demonstrate it here. I would be lynched just like I'm whipped here now just because I dare to even consider the possibilty there's something wrong with scientific thinking and that there's more to this "case of Bozo" than just mere coincidence.

BTW, I have had this kind of whipping also before, mostly by academic folk who never seem to be able to disapprove something they just dismiss with the weapons of debate language which they have gathered during their years in college.

Well, to be honest, now I realize that you do in fact have a theory. Your theory is that Bozo's subconscious might have somehow calculated that there is going to be a blackout the following day. I missed it in the mess that is this thread and I apologize

That is a lot better than just saying: "There is something weird going on.. ooooh". You have a working theory. That is science.

It is at least plausible and something we can bite into and debate. "Something weird is going on" is just worthless.

I disagree that that's what happened and think that coincidence is a much more elegant explanation, however I do respect your idea as a potentially plausible theory that could be studied and analyzed.

 

[Corlindale]

Okay, that is the best thing anyone has said so far.

Seconded. A clear phrasing of the issue at hand at its most basic level.

 

[C~G]

What? You are ending your argument against relying on the scientific method by comparing yourself to the man who played the greatest part in inventing it?

It wasn't anything but coincidental joke made in my mind about something that seemed to be linked in reality.

And please don't equal science with religious dogma.

But the attitude can the same. It takes only small leap and we end up with system that doens't allow disbelief. I'm just warning people of such thing, nothing else.

Science doesn't place bounds on thinking, people do that, you only have to look into two theories of Physics of recent times to see the areas science will explore without rational or experimental evidence.

Growing in popularity amongs some theorists, despite it sounding more like sci fi than science.

We need more of this.
And I'm well aware of these theories.
Example David Deutsch is one of my favourite reads.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes and could never state anything absolutely, nor does it deal with intangables of an unkowable nature(although it might speculate) but it does not dismiss them out of hand, it simply does not acknowledge them within a scientific framework without proof,

The framework must start from somewhere, and it starts from phenomena as such as here. If we dismiss at first sight as mere coincidence lending some kind of explanation from the field of statistics then there's something badly wrong somewhere especially since human mind is involved there's more to it for sure.

Saying they are not important is not exactly right, a better way of expressing it is they are not important to science.

And that is exactly where I'm getting act. Maybe they should be?

But maybe we should just forget Bozo's dream and consider it as only coincidence and concentrate into more important things as such as is Pluto planet or not. After all with Pluto we could be talking about elves since it doesn't affect my life, right? Or does it?

What I am most interested in is your explanation of what made the actual event happen after the dream, if it wasn't mere coincidence.

Coincidence would be something like we both taking dump at the same time. Those things don't probably affect each other unless we live in same building and create blockage into the sewer by doing so in the same moment.
I might ask what is the actual event in this case?
The dream -> the talk -> the brownout -> the aftermath.
What are the things that caused this string of events and how it affects Bozo's reality and how it could have affected his life if example he could have dreamed example about lightning before it strucks him? I joked about constant brownouts in New Jersey but how often they actually happen? There are numerous things that aren't covered here.

We could speculate with such things as time and space continuum but then again I would rather value such explanation (which sounds more logical to me!) that we cope with the enviroment and Bozo's brain (we are talking about him as some kind of test subject ) got hunch that such thing as blackout could happen because things he had perceived before seemed to show so.
I believe this is instrumental for our understanding how our reality, life and world as we experience it is constructed or projected to us by our brain (by ourselves).

I agree that coincidences play a part in constructing our reality, and I can also follow the Chaos Theory argument of great consequences from small coincidences, like the famous quote:

However, I'm dubious as to whether it is possible to deduce future thought, actions and behaviour through this. I'm not sure I fully understand the argumentation here.

I'm saying that the coincidences affect our simulation of reality in our brain simultaneously with our experience of the world.

Your theory is that Bozo's subconscious might have somehow calculated that there is going to be a blackout the following day. I missed it in the mess that is this thread and I apologize

I disagree that that's what happened and think that coincidence is a much more elegant explanation, however I do respect your idea as a potentially plausible theory that could be studied and analyzed.

No need to apologize.
That is part of my theory yes. Now the problem is to determine how it actually happens. I have been interested about this for years.

And thank you, Taliesin you stepped in. You seemed to grasp the situation from "the outside" immediately. We others seemed to be too deep, down and dirty already in this.

We still recognise that, on the basis of the data, the paranormal explanation of your choice is possible; but there is no reason to suppose it to be true.

We are simply missing the big picture here, that is all I'm saying. What I find problematic is that if we dismiss such thing as mere coincidence when it could have more value to our understanding than many other things. Whether you hold it true isn't that important right now, as long as the door stays ajar for further study and explanations.

If someone has something to add, I answer to you later when I have time and I have had some sleep.

 

[warpus]

We are simply missing the big picture here, that is all I'm saying. What I find problematic is that if we dismiss such thing as mere coincidence when it could have more value to our understanding than many other things. Whether you hold it true isn't that important right now, as long as the door stays ajar for further study and explanations.

The idea that this is a coincidence is not being used to dismiss anything. It is simply the most plausible explanation of what happened, given the known rules and laws of how the Universe operates.

It'd be like saying that we dismiss things falling to the ground as mere laws of physics.

 

[Corlindale]

It wasn't anything but coincidental joke made in my mind about something that seemed to be linked in reality.

Fair enough

But the attitude can the same. It takes only small leap and we end up with system that doens't allow disbelief. I'm just warning people of such thing, nothing else.

It's true that many of the greater discoveries in the 19th and 20th century were discredited as first by large parts of the scientific community despite evidence. But I don't think it has done it to such an extent that the Church did.
In principle that is very unscientific, but I guess humans may occasionally have a tendency to want to stick to the old ways. The ideal scientist is always open to changes in his theories provided the basis for them is sound. But you may have a point about it not always being so in actuality. It's just that most people who use the "scientists are soo set in their old ways"- argument are advocates of non-scientific ideas like ID or Creationism, and merely uses it to mean "scientists are dumb because they do not accept our baseless theory", and so it tends to switch on my annoyance reflex.

The framework must start from somewhere, and it starts from phenomena as such as here. If we dismiss at first sight as mere coincidence lending some kind of explanation from the field of statistics then there's something badly wrong somewhere especially since human mind is involved there's more to it for sure.

Why "for sure"? Couldn't we have two independent events, event A being Bozo(or Test Subject 1, as we like to refer to him ) dreaming of a blackout, and event B being a blackout happening. No causal connection needs to exist between the two. Bozo's dream could have been stimulated by a stray thought in his subconsciousness appearing as he switched off his night lamp before going to sleep, or there could be many other reasons. But I doubt the dream was a result of a thorough subconscious evaluation of the possibilities of an imminent blackout deduced from observations of slight alterations in the behaviour of electrical devices. The human mind is a fantastic construction, but I doubt it is capable of making so complex rationalizations on a subconscious level, and in any case I think it unlikely that the mind of Test Subject 1 would have had access to any sensory inputs that would lead it to predict the blackout and be able to connect them in the right way to make the conclusion that a blackout was likely to be coming.

 

[Taliesin]

We are simply missing the big picture here, that is all I'm saying. What I find problematic is that if we dismiss such thing as mere coincidence when it could have more value to our understanding than many other things.

There is this feature of science, or of any method really, that from certain angles looks like a weakness: it can't make leaps. Rarely, someone whom the mainstream would label a kook makes a radical new discovery, or looks at things in a useful new way. When this happens, he is recognised in later generations as a scientific pioneer and even a genius, and it becomes easy to lampoon the scientific establishment post facto for having dismissed him. But kooks are usually, simply, kooks, who should be dismissed.

What I mean to say is that, while open-mindedness and ingenuity are certainly virtues in a scientist, they are also luxuries that the scientific method (and hence, the establishment) cannot afford. The cost of not dismissing things like clairvoyant dreams as mere coincidence would be much greater than that of overlooking something of value which could be gained from pursuing them.

 

[Jawz II]

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.

brownout= Lights flickering and mometarily going out.

people dream all the time, you do too. is it that hard to belive it was all a co incident? to be honest ive seen/heard of weirder ones.

think of all the days that go by without anything weird (co incidental) happening. the odds are some day sooner or later something like will occur. im sure the chance of it happening is much bigger than winning the lottery.

 

[Sidhe]

There is this feature of science, or of any method really, that from certain angles looks like a weakness: it can't make leaps. Rarely, someone whom the mainstream would label a kook makes a radical new discovery, or looks at things in a useful new way. When this happens, he is recognised in later generations as a scientific pioneer and even a genius, and it becomes easy to lampoon the scientific establishment post facto for having dismissed him. But kooks are usually, simply, kooks, who should be dismissed.

What I mean to say is that, while open-mindedness and ingenuity are certainly virtues in a scientist, they are also luxuries that the scientific method (and hence, the establishment) cannot afford. The cost of not dismissing things like clairvoyant dreams as mere coincidence would be much greater than that of overlooking something of value which could be gained from pursuing them.

You're judging the establishment, not the scientists, they do provide a myriad of off the wall hypothesis oh believe it and trust me on this; to me this sort of post is indicative of someone who doesn't understand the way science works, yes it dismisses science that is unfounded, but there are literally thousands of new hypothesis expounded every few years and these are either proven experimentally by mathematical abstraction or dismissed,there's not some conspiracy out there, just an expectation to have proof? If you are right you are just right.

Most people think science is like a cabal, but if you actually take time to look into it there are more so called nuts and quacks and crackpots than you could possibly imagine, the difference between a crackpot and a scientist is proof or a good mathematical basis. Science is so much more evolutionary than religion and sometimes philosophy dare I say it although the two are complimentary these days. And the sheer volume of dissenters to every theory is astounding, just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist, they just don't gain any sort of credence usually without proof; for every theory there are a thousand and one dissenters. This is what makes science grow, not adherence to dogma, but a genuine disregard for it by science's own nature.

And all those saying people don't look into areas that are outside of science do not see where parapsychologists tread, these are now scientists, and scientists with PhD funding. For example Oxford University and other Universities working on probability, have been looking into why some people seem to be luckier than others for years, if they find anything I'll let you know.

And in the UK certain parapsychological research groups are working under more scientific scrutiny than you could imagine to produce credible scientific results, this idea that science is just about the mainstream is very much a dead idea.

 

[Taliesin]

I don't mean what I think you think I mean.

I'm not suggesting conspiracy, or supposing unanimity of content. My point was simply that rigorous adherence to scientific method is the most fruitful policy, even if in hindsight a more tangential approach may have been a better approach to a particular question.

In a case such as this, for example, perhaps science will one day discover a capacity for clairvoyance in human dreams, and then our dismissal of Bozo's experience as coincidence would look stupidly conservative. However, the success of science as a collective enterprise (perhaps "enterprise" communicates my meaning better than "establishment") depends on dismissing such things as coincidence until experiments dictate otherwise.

Note though that of course I have no issue with scientists examining the subject; if this was the sentiment being expressed, and I misread it, I apologise.

 

[Sidhe]

I don't mean what I think you think I mean.

I'm not suggesting conspiracy, or supposing unanimity of content. My point was simply that rigorous adherence to scientific method is the most fruitful policy, even if in hindsight a more tangential approach may have been a better approach to a particular question.

In a case such as this, for example, perhaps science will one day discover a capacity for clairvoyance in human dreams, and then our dismissal of Bozo's experience as coincidence would look stupidly conservative. However, the success of science as a collective enterprise (perhaps "enterprise" communicates my meaning better than "establishment") depends on dismissing such things as coincidence until experiments dictate otherwise.

Note though that of course I have no issue with scientists examining the subject; if this was the sentiment being expressed, and I misread it, I apologise.

Oh ok but not really our dismissal of a single anecdotal event will still be a valuable assumption of a non clairvoyant experience based on simple probability, if he can do it repeatedly and clairvoyance is then explained, well then we're the Bozos here

Essentially we don't dismiss coincidence out of hand, we dismiss anecdotal coincidence out of hand, when coincidences happen 5/10 then they are no longer coincidences, so the definition of a coincidence changes to a statistical anomoly, science leaps in, my god you can do that more as often as not!

But at face value a coincidence is just a coincidence. I mean that's fair right if you claim you had dreams about the future and could prove them true, we'd say as scientists cool ok, send in your dreams let's take a look; if 1 out of 30 came true, we might think hmmm but 29 are false, therefore your correct assumption could be accounted for by probability, sooner or later even the most unpsychic person is going to get something right in his dreams, hell even I have.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do I believe that truth is an illusion?
Yes, human truth as it relates to external reality at least.

I'm not saying I can only think in scientific terms, I'm saying your story is an anecdote. i.e. anecdote, n. The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking.

Nothing wrong with an anecdote, it just doesn't have any explanitory power. By its self it adds nothing to the state of human understanding besides perhaps some personal understanding.

So for precognition - I can't rule it out but neither do I see any evidence to make me think it might be real.

And anecdotes are what make stories which we tell each other, which after a while, are what our life becomes. Science is useful when it comes to transfering the hard cold facts about stuff, but with anecdotes we can share who we are and why we are the way we are.

Should we one day have lunch on the plaza in Santa Fe, Gothmog, I'm sure you will tell me anecdotes about your kids and colleagues, stories. I will do the same. The anecdote holds the meaning life in a way that science cannot. As important as science is to our lives and the way we live, it also destroyes life through its relentless search for evidence and objectivity.

How we explain anecdotes can be revealing. Your explanation while pretty hard, is characteristically cushioned to keep it from dealing life a harsh blow. Many of the posters here have stripped them down to the the hard, sharp edges of coincidence and probability in hopes of killing all thought of any life outside of reason.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You are saying that there is more to coincidences than meets the eye - and are suggesting that the supernatural may be involved. That is quite an extraordinary claim.

I believe that he is saying only that science cannot explain what happened. It could be a very "natural" event that is beyond our current knowledge base just like genetic mutation was 500 years ago. or quantum theory was 100 years ago.

I admit that there are things about reality that we don't understand yet. However, nobody, so far, has been able to provide any sort of proof that people can see into the future. There is nothing to suggest that it may be possible.

How many times has this type of thinking been proven wrong in the past?

Occam's Razor suggests that what you experienced was a mere coincidence. These happen from time to time. If you want to suggest that something more profound is happening here, without any sort of proof at all, then you don't really have much of a point.

Is there any "proof" of coincidence in his anecdote? Labeling such an event as coincidence is a placeholder for "I'm not going to let you call it anything else."

I concede that there are things about this universe we don't understand yet, but do not think that this lack of understanding should give credence to theories without any sort of backing. All you have is a very vague suggestion. "Something might be going on here". No evidence, no nothing. That's why I don't buy your argument.

BE is not tryiing to create new theories or overturn science, he is merely pointing out places where science has not yet found an answer. In light of that fact that science cannot/has not put forth an answer, Bozo has provided one.

Yes, but to acquire new knowledge using a totally non-scientific way, such as you are doing, is a mistake. If your conclusion was not arrived at using scientific principles then it can only have philisophical and/or musical merit at most.

And what percent of what you know as a person is based on acquiring knowledge in a scientific way? And btw, you will find that in life, the knowledge acquired without applying scientific principles is most valuble.
[/QUOTE]