Explain this, you empiricists

[Bozo Erectus]

Whats at play here is a very fundamental difference in how peoples minds operate, its very interesting and would be a great thread topic all on its own. On the one hand, you have one set of people who require physical proof and evidence, every step of the way before proceeding, and then another set of people who, while welcoming proof and evidence, dont see that the lack of it should be an impediment to speculation and serious thought. I think both are actually dependent on one another, and when they work well together can really illuminate the world in new and amazing ways. Sorry I dont have any proof for that

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is it arrogant to assert that there are no invisible teapots orbits nearby celestial objects?

Is it arrogant to assert there is no invisible pink elephant on my desk?

Such assertions are not arrogant, they prevent us from considering total inanities every second of every day.

No, it is not arrogant, it is stupid to say such things, just like it is stupid to equate human concepts of god to invisible teacups, unicorns or elephants. You only show your own ignorance of what the other side is talking about.

Statement: There is a permanent, unchanging, infinite, underlying nature to all existence.

a) Theory?
b) Arrogant statement of dubious usefulness or value?
c) Inane statement by a delusional person?
d) none of the above

 

[Birdjaguar]

Whats at play here is a very fundamental difference in how peoples minds operate, its very interesting and would be a great thread topic all on its own. On the one hand, you have one set of people who require physical proof and evidence, every step of the way before proceeding, and then another set of people who, while welcoming proof and evidence, dont see that the lack of it should be an impediment to speculation and serious thought. I think both are actually dependent on one another, and when they work well together can really illuminate the world in new and amazing ways. Sorry I dont have any proof for that

And the irony of it is that those people (bolded group) live most of their daily lives doing things that are irrational and based on anecdotal knowedge.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its like scientists have erected a vast, complex maze for which they have a detailed blueprint showing exactly which path needs to be taken to get to the exit. They move people through the maze effortlessly and nobody can deny that the blueprint is perfect. Within the maze, the blueprint is the only way to go. However every once in awhile, someone right at the entrance, who's never even glanced at the blueprint, breaks away from the group, gets a step ladder, peers over the wall and spots the exit. "He says, there it is! Follow me!" and he jumps over the wall and goes directly to the exit. And the scientists say, "Pay no attention to him, he's insane. Now everyone move along, thats it...follow the blueprint..."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anomaly detection is one of our most powerful skills and it is a shame to restrict it to use within the bounds of science. One may not need the blueprints to "discover" the exit.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And the irony of it is that those people (bolded group) live most of their daily lives doing things that are irrational and based on anecdotal knowedge.

Theyre still human, the poor devils Science doesnt have to negate and dismiss human intuition. The greatest scientists who ever lived, the ones we remember most, were those who used intuition to make great leaps ahead of their contemporaries.

 

[Eiba]

On the one hand, you have one set of people who require physical proof and evidence, every step of the way before proceeding, and then another set of people who, while welcoming proof and evidence, dont see that the lack of it should be an impediment to speculation and serious thought.

The issue is you’re not just speculating and thinking, you're claiming! You're dismissing the possibility of coincidence, while insisting that unknown forces are involved. In short, you’ve abandoned all logic!

You claim that strong resistance to the likelihood of your idea is harmful to progress, understanding, and whatnot, when in fact the opposite is true. If you can't respond to the possibility that the occurrence was random and the two events are unconnected, you have a weak theory and it's in the process of being weeded out. That's how we get an accurate view of what is and isn't (or how we get to the most accurate view given our observations).

(If I'm misrepresenting your views, I just make the modest request that you correct me with a more specific outline of your actual views than something like, "I just think some coincidences aren't.")


As a general aside, not necessarily specific to this topic: You seem to be fond of drawing connections to things that make sense, but one’s sense isn’t reliable. (By sense I refer generally to intuition, rather than something like the 5 senses.) Take for instance the Monty Hall Paradox. Briefly: Game show: 3 doors, one with a prize behind it, you choose. So you pick a door, and it is not opened. One of the remaining doors is without revealing the prize, and you are allowed to switch doors. What do you do? As it turns out, switching doors doubles your odds. Generally, that makes no sense (you'd expect all the doors to have equal odds), but it's true. If you don't believe it get a friend to help you set something like it up and do it repeatedly, and you’ll find that your sense is contradicted by observation.

Similarly in this case, you get a sense that these two events are related, but perfectly statistically plausible without any special relation.

 

[Millman]

Theyre still human, the poor devils Science doesnt have to negate and dismiss human intuition. The greatest scientists who ever lived, the ones we remember most, were those who used intuition to make great leaps ahead of their contemporaries.

You could argue the emotional side for a very long time. Human intuition, coincidence? Things these could also be human values, Mr. Vulcan.

Why wasn't I born a rock so one day I might be thrown across a lake or crushed beneath the earth during a quake. That way I wouldn't have to hear this endless chatter.

*Some star trek/civ references in there*

 

[Riffraff]

Hmm maybe a simple calculation can help out here a bit.

Lets assume, that a person dreams about blackouts on every 60,000 night (which is about 164 years or 2 live spans roughly). Now lets assume that one morning a fourth New York has a blackout/brownout. Simple probablility shows that the odds of noone waking up and thinking he's a physic is:
p = (1 - (1/60,000))^2,000,000) = 3.34 * 10 ^(-13) % or 0.000000000000334 %. So that would actually be the freaky result.

If you dont like the parameters i put in, simply change them and recalculate...

 

[JoeM]

Add in to your calculations 6 billion people dreaming something every night.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The issue is you’re not just speculating and thinking, you're claiming! You're dismissing the possibility of coincidence, while insisting that unknown forces are involved. In short, you’ve abandoned all logic!

Eiba correct me if Im wrong but I dont think that Ive completely ruled out the possibility of coincidence at all in this thread. What Ive been attempting to do is introduce the possibility of something other than coincidence, and met stiff resistance. As far as logic is concerned, I think its highly illogical to believe that one understands human consciousness, Time, and the functioning of the brain on the quantum level sufficiently to whip up some calculations to definitively prove that cases of precognition are always mere meaningless coincidence.

You claim that strong resistance to the likelihood of your idea is harmful to progress, understanding, and whatnot, when in fact the opposite is true.

No, not my idea. Whats harmful to progress is when people believe that everything is known, so nobody should even raise questions about prevailing assumptions.

If you can't respond to the possibility that the occurrence was random and the two events are unconnected, you have a weak theory and it's in the process of being weeded out.

Um, Ive been responding to that possibility for 9 pages. I dont think anythings being weeded out. Its not like many of you were ever open to the possibility that it might not be a coincidence, and have subsequently been persuaded otherwise.

(If I'm misrepresenting your views, I just make the modest request that you correct me with a more specific outline of your actual views than something like, "I just think some coincidences aren't.")

If after 9 pages of discussion you arent able to figure out what Im talking about, chances are, you just arent able to, and never will.

As a general aside, not necessarily specific to this topic: You seem to be fond of drawing connections to things that make sense, but one’s sense isn’t reliable. (By sense I refer generally to intuition, rather than something like the 5 senses.)

Eiba, you may choose to not trust your senses, and instead rely on mathematical equations, but thats not how most human beings experience life.

Similarly in this case, you get a sense that these two events are related, but perfectly statistically plausible without any special relation.

Youre saying I should dismiss the input of my own senses, including my own intuition and feelings, and embrace this instead?

p = (1 - (1/60,000))^2,000,000) = 3.34 * 10 ^(-13) % or 0.000000000000334 %

Um, no thanks, I'll pass on that. Maybe in 500 years when Im a cyborg

 

[Riffraff]

Youre saying I should dismiss the input of my own senses, including my own intuition and feelings, and embrace this instead?

p = (1 - (1/60,000))^2,000,000) = 3.34 * 10 ^(-13) % or 0.000000000000334 %

Um, no thanks, I'll pass on that. Maybe in 500 years when Im a cyborg

look this is very basic probability and as you appartently dont understand it, you dont have the right to just simply dismiss it. What I was showing you was stories like yours are accounted for by probability. So as theory seems to be working, there is no reason to look for a new one (Oh look the apple just fell to the ground - the laws of gravity must be wrong!!!)

edit: and please tell me where i told you to dismiss your senses, intuition and feelings...

 

[Gothmog]

@Birdjaguar:
Anecdotes are great, as I said they are striking and interesting stories; very human.

Thing is, we're talking about how to gain an understanding of the external reality that we all assume we share. In that arena the scientific method cannot be beat.

While knowledge of a presumed external reality is nice, and a worthy goal. I agree with you that subjective knowledge is the path to happiness, also a worthy goal.

This though (posted by Bozo) I don't agree with:

Its like scientists have erected a vast, complex maze for which they have a detailed blueprint showing exactly which path needs to be taken to get to the exit. They move people through the maze effortlessly and nobody can deny that the blueprint is perfect. Within the maze, the blueprint is the only way to go. However every once in awhile, someone right at the entrance, who's never even glanced at the blueprint, breaks away from the group, gets a step ladder, peers over the wall and spots the exit. "He says, there it is! Follow me!" and he jumps over the wall and goes directly to the exit. And the scientists say, "Pay no attention to him, he's insane. Now everyone move along, thats it...follow the blueprint..."

I would assert that if any profitable path over the wall were even thought possible, science would be tripping over its self trying to exploit it.

Again and again science has shown its ability to toss out its old blueprint in the face of a more profitable path forward.

These things have been studied by science since before there was science, and have always been found lacking. If precognition were as real as radioactive decay, humans would have found profitable ways to exploit it.

The crux of what I've been asserting is that I mistrust anecdotes of the type you related because of the strong human desire to believe them.

To me the more interesting thing about anecdotes of this sort is what they tell us about human psychology and motivation. What purpose did our desire to believe in things of this nature (including the divine) originally serve, or what does it still serve?

For those who actually play CIV it's like the oft repeated tank vs. spearman anecdote. Why do people, who nominally understand statistics, get such a personal feeling of betrayal when they lose one in twenty battles that should be won 95% of the time?

I've been present for discussions between intelligent people arguing that the RNG in Civ must be somehow rigged, in the face of knowledge of how it is implemented and tests showing its behavior.

It is only by creating an artifice such as the scientific method that we can escape this mode and actually make some progress in trying to understand the external reality that we presume to share.

We are stardust.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

@Riffraff, I know you didnt tell me to dismiss my senses, I used your equation to respond to Eiba. And just as you have the right to dismiss the beliefs and experiences of many countless millions of people because you spent a few minutes on a calculator, I can also dismiss whatever I wish. But for the 50 friggin billionth time in this thread: I AM NOT DISMISSING ANYTHING. I AM TRYING TO INTRODUCE THE APPARENTLY RADICAL CONCEPT THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS KNOWN.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Gothmog, what I mean by the maze is that scientists are trapped within the scientific method. Theres nothing actually wrong with this. Naturally, if you want to be a scientist, you have to operate as a scientist. Theres nothing wrong with scientists, or science. Im merely saying that they, and it, have their limits. I dont knock the scientific method at all. I just dont believe that all of reality is subservient to it.

 

[Taliesin]

No, it is not arrogant, it is stupid to say such things, just like it is stupid to equate human concepts of god to invisible teacups, unicorns or elephants. You only show your own ignorance of what the other side is talking about.

Statement: There is a permanent, unchanging, infinite, underlying nature to all existence.

Well, OK. You know I'm a theist, and a fairly doctrinally defined one at that, so you know that I agree with this statement. But there's a great difference in worth between theism, which is a valid (and correct) view of the world, and [insert paranormal claim here]. Believing in clairvoyance or invisible unicorns without rational examination of that belief is pretty silly, and the more specific the claim the sillier it is.

I would say that, even without the testament of Scripture and revelation and faith and all that, a general theistic creed would be a reasonable belief to hold, since as a worldview it's as least as good and coherent as any atheistic account. However, particular claims about what God is like require some evidence and/or reasoned thought; and claims about preternatural dream visions or spinning teacups, being more specific again, require a heck of a lot more in the way of evidence before they're even reasonable to consider.

I might be misjudging your point though, since I'm jumping in midstream and couldn't find exactly what you were responding to.

 

[warpus]

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.

Possible, but that is simply wild speculation.

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

How many times has it been proven right?

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."

No, it's simply admitting that unless more evidence can be found, this was most likely a coincidence. Due to a lack of evidence we can make an estimated guess that it was in fact a coincidence, and nothing else.

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.

But science has provided an answer.. the event was simply a coincidence.

Say I roll a dice 10 times and get 6 each and every time. The most likely explanation is that it was simply a coincidence, not that "something else is going on here". Sure, the possibility that something else is going on exists, but given all the data we have, the most likliest of explanations is that it was just a coincidence and that no supernatural event has taken place, nor that I was consciously controlling the dice somehow to get 10 6s in a row.

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]

Most of the things in life which require direct explanation have been explained in a scientific way. Why does my computer work? Why is it raining? Why am I growing? How did I get here? How does the bus work? Why does the sun rise from the east to the west? All of the questions that have been answered that require a "Here's how it happens" answer have been answered in a scientific way.

There are many other things that do not require this sort of answer, and this is what you're talking about. Why do my parents love me? Why is blue my favourite colour? Why am I attracted to brunettes? These sorts of questions do not require a direct: "and here's the science" type of answer.

The question asked in this thread requires a direct, scientific, answer.

 

[Veritass]

Gothmog, what I mean by the maze is that scientists are trapped within the scientific method. Theres nothing actually wrong with this. Naturally, if you want to be a scientist, you have to operate as a scientist. Theres nothing wrong with scientists, or science. Im merely saying that they, and it, have their limits. I dont knock the scientific method at all. I just dont believe that all of reality is subservient to it.

Quoted for truth. Einstein's theories of relativity are the classic example of this; they did not fit into the scientific theory of the day, and were amazing leaps of intuition. The science of the day was not even capable of testing the validity of his theories.

Eventually, science caught up somewhat, but they are still constructing this new wing of the maze. That is what your analogy needs: the constant construction by new scientists.

 

[warpus]

Whats at play here is a very fundamental difference in how peoples minds operate, its very interesting and would be a great thread topic all on its own. On the one hand, you have one set of people who require physical proof and evidence, every step of the way before proceeding, and then another set of people who, while welcoming proof and evidence, dont see that the lack of it should be an impediment to speculation and serious thought. I think both are actually dependent on one another, and when they work well together can really illuminate the world in new and amazing ways. Sorry I dont have any proof for that

Speculation is nice and dandy, but unless you can back your speculation up with something concrete, that's all it will remain.

I can sit here and philisophically speculate about the nature of time-space, but unless I can actually back any of my ideas up with anything, they contribute nothing to human knowledge.

Statement: There is a permanent, unchanging, infinite, underlying nature to all existence.

e.) This doesn't actually mean anything

What Ive been attempting to do is introduce the possibility of something other than coincidence, and met stiff resistance.

Because you have no evidence of any sort that your theory might be true.

 

[Riffraff]

I AM NOT DISMISSING ANYTHING. I AM TRYING TO INTRODUCE THE APPARENTLY RADICAL CONCEPT THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS KNOWN.

I'm sure that noone would argue against that point, especially not scientists as they're usually very open about things they dont know/can't explain. This does not hold true for all mystics/dogamtists though..