Are Personal Experiences Valid Evidence?

[Joy Division]

Why is it that people these days look so badly upon anybody that doesn't immediatly believe every claim brought before them?
One is urged to have an open mind, and this open mind is usually equated to believing without evidence.

Psuedoscience is so hard for most to tell from real science. Now the majority of people believe that silliness like psychics are 100% real and proven scientifically.
It's not that people are stupid or anything, well educated people fall into these same traps.
Here's a paper by a french professor showing what I mean.

http://www.unice.fr/zetetique/anglais/a_zetetique.html

 

[pace]

The urge for being normal, like everyone else, should be a sickness as much as being too 'nuts'.

 

[drag]

I knew the French were moro... Oops...
Well, what can I say, people in general are mostly a
stupid mob, nothing we can do about it (for now ).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Now the majority of people believe that silliness like psychics

This statement does not represent skepticism. What you state is a belief. I think you may have a problem with definitions. Why would you expect any less from people who have other belief systems?

 

[Joy Division]

Well of course it is my belief. It can't be very well proven that no such thing exists. That doesn't make it any more existent or any less foolish to believe there is concrete scientific evidence of the existence of psychics.

[edit added emphasis to make sure my point gets though]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Well of course it is my belief. It can't be very well proven that no such thing exists. That doesn't make it any more existent or any less foolish to believe there is concrete scientific evidence of the existence of psychics.

[edit added emphasis to make sure my point gets though]

I can completely appreciate the requirement for proof. This is a good thing. First though I want to point out that while you ask where all the skeptics have gone, you make a highly biased statement which is an example of your complaint.

Next, you are drawing conclusions based on a belief. By definition, using logic, we can never prove a negative. This means that we can never prove that psychics don't exist. If they do exist, we might be able to prove that this is true. In either case, even though you may be right, and even though your requirement for proof is admirable, what you are really asking is why more people don't agree with your unproven and un-provable belief.

 

[Joy Division]

No actually I'm not. I'm talking about a style of thought. That people are more willing to stick it out as the underdog and have a chance at being proven right, (Not through realistic possibility, just by the fact that they can't be proven wrong.) than those who would doubt the existence of something until real concrete evidence appears.

It's not a matter of religious faith to believe that leprechauns don't exist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
No actually I'm not. I'm talking about a style of thought. That people are more willing to stick it out as the underdog and have a chance at being proven right, (Not through realistic possibility, just by the fact that they can't be proven wrong.) than those who would doubt the existence of something until real concrete evidence appears.

It's not a matter of religious faith to believe that leprechauns don't exist.

A style of thought? You mean where you draw conclusions based on no evidence?

 

[Joy Division]

Not any more than believing someone is innocent until proven guilty is a belief unfounded on evidence.

It is not smart for a scientific world view to accept every theory or phenomenon as right or true until proven otherwise. It must work the other way around for science to be in anyway tractable.

My question is simply why do more people not try to apply the scientific principle and critical thinking in their lives? Yes it does take a conscious decision to do so because that is not how the brain itself operates. I fail to see how this is an unfair question.

If you have some agenda please come forward with it this is becoming tiresome.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Not any more than believing someone is innocent until proven guilty is a belief unfounded on evidence.

It is not smart for a scientific world view to accept every theory or phenomenon as right or true until proven otherwise. It must work the other way around for science to be in anyway tractable.

My question is simply why do more people not try to apply the scientific principle and critical thinking in their lives? Yes it does take a conscious decision to do so because that is not how the brain itself operates. I fail to see how this is an unfair question.

If you have some agenda please come forward with it this is becoming tiresome.

Well, first I can assure you that no agenda of mine is hidden. I make my position on things abundantly clear [note the avatar]. In this particular case, I only want to distinguish between skepticism, and preconceived notions of reality. You don't know what is and is not possible. No one benefits from a closed mind. Tell me, how much time have you spent researching the subject of psychics?

 

[Joy Division]

So you come on to this thread to say that I have beliefs unfounded in reality and then espouse your own beliefs that have no evidence like calling me closed minded.

Note that all the beliefs you've accused me of are not in any way central to my entire belief structure. I could give any of them up at a moments notice given proper evidence. You're picking nits at insignificant things.

Is it that you want me to say that I "withold judgement" until I have proper evidence. That may be easier for you to understand how I feel.
This is closer to how I feel about certain things like alien spacecraft .

If you want to debate the existence of psychic phenomena start a new thread. All I'll say here is that I've researched enough to be confident in my views on it. And if it helps you to not misrepresent my position I used to be a strong believer in esp as a child.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
So you come on to this thread to say that have beliefs unfounded in reality and then espouse your own beliefs that have no evidence like calling me closed minded.

I am not arguing for a belief in psychics; but that's what you seem to want to make it. This is a discussion about your predisposed beliefs being hidden under the guise of objectivity.

Note that all the beliefs you've accused me of are not in any way central to my entire belief structure. I could give any of them up at a moments notice given proper evidence. You're picking nits at insignificant things.

You made your opinion on this clear. Since you don't know of any evidence the subject is silliness.

Is it that you want me to say that I "withold judgement" until I have proper evidence. That may be easier for you to understand how I feel.
This is closer to how I feel about certain things like alien spacecraft .

I am not arguing for belief. I am arguing for an open mind. How much does your position on psychics leave open for personal testimony? How many people did you just call liars?

If you want to debate the existence of psychic phenomena start a new thread. All I'll say here is that I've researched enough to be confident in my views on it. And if it helps you to not misrepresent my position I used to be a strong believer in esp as a child.

According to some recent reports from a major university, I will dig up the link for another thread, proof of precognition in the order of 1/3 second has been reliably demonstrated. I just heard reference made to this by one of the guest physicists in a tribute to Stephen Hawking: PBS, "A Brief history of Time." But I will gladly save this proof for ESP for another thread.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

I am not arguing for belief. I am arguing for an open mind. How much does your position on psychics leave open for personal testimony? How many people did you just call liars?

I think the point is, skeptics are open-minded to concepts, where are minds are 'closed' is when we decide what sort of evidence we accept. I don't believe in UFOs, ESP, etc. However, if there were 5-6 independent studies from reputable sources, claiming to have found valid evidence, I would be perfectly able to accept the provisional existence of those things.

Personal testimony is the absolute least reliable source possible. Without corroboration, it is useless.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the point is, skeptics are open-minded to concepts, where are minds are 'closed' is when we decide what sort of evidence we accept. I don't believe in UFOs, ESP, etc. However, if there were 5-6 independent studies from reputable sources, claiming to have found valid evidence, I would be perfectly able to accept the provisional existence of those things.

First, I didn't mean to get so aggressive, sorry Joy, but this hits another sore spot for me. The evidence for some kind of precognition appears to be nearly solid. This is very new and I have resisted any non pseudo posts [I did make one about this is the pseudo section] until more information is available. However I clearly heard this referenced by a heavy weight just a couple of days ago on PBS. I don't know who he was, but the crowd was Hawking, Thorne, and other highly notables. I will be posting more about this when I can dig up some more good references. I should probably get what I posted before for a reference. I will start another thread in the pseudo section tomorrow.

I don't think many scientists are sensitive to the personal elements of these claims. The science does not speak to the personal experiences. When you call this silliness you tell tens of thousands of people that they are fools or liars.

Edit: please note also that just as personal experiences do not qualify as scientific evidence, science can't say anything about the credibility of the personal experiences [aside from occasional mental problems and what not]. The claim could be perfectly true, we just can't measure anything. This hardly qualifies as hogwash. It only means that we have no scientific evidence for such a thing.

 

[Joy Division]

When you say I'm calling people liars, you're posting in the same tone when you say my beliefs are "unproven and unprovable".

You're trying to make the way I think seem malicious when it's not.
I give consideration to personal experiences but I have no way to corroborate or verify them. Also I know myself that even my memory of personal experiences is sometimes flawed and othertimes completely false. I don't think these people are often lying trying to fool people. That would mean that they know that they're wrong. I know however that it is easy to fool yourself, especially when you really want to believe. Look up ideomotor action for example of the ways in which we can fool ourselves.

I will look into whatever stuff you put up but I've seen enough tv documentories that are just downright false , or try to push a certain perspective. It's been a long time since I've seen anything in the media that retains even a shred of objectivity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
When you say I'm calling people liars, you're posting in the same tone when you say my beliefs are "unproven and unprovable".

Here I only meant to state a simple truth of logic. We can't use science to disprove things that can't be tested.

You're trying to make the way I think seem malicious when it's not. I give consideration to personal experiences but I have no way to corroborate or verify them.

Again I apoligize for my aggresive tone last night. I don't mean to make you sound malicious. In fact, this would be drawing conclusions which is the basis of my objection. But you do dimiss these claims as silliness. I don't think this qualifies as statement based in science, however you seem to think that it is.

Also I know myself that even my memory of personal experiences is sometimes flawed and othertimes completely false. I don't think these people are often lying trying to fool people. That would mean that they know that they're wrong. I know however that it is easy to fool yourself, especially when you really want to believe. Look up ideomotor action for example of the ways in which we can fool ourselves.

We can fool ourselves just as well by closing our minds. Which is more dangerous; a wreckless driver or a blind driver?

I will look into whatever stuff you put up but I've seen enough tv documentories that are just downright false , or try to push a certain perspective. It's been a long time since I've seen anything in the media that retains even a shred of objectivity.

I want to make clear that I am not arguing for psychics: If you go to the pseudo sci thread you will find that I just slammed John Edwards big time. Here I can pick particular details and scrutinize what he does. I feel justified to cry foul because we have direct observation of his program and "insights". However, when a mother tells you that she somehow knew the moment that her son was shot in Iraq, or when a father tells you that his dead son came and talked with him in the bedroom, or when Jean Dixon begged Kennedy not to go to Dallas, we really have no scientific way to address these events or claims. We are left either calling people liars, or insisting that they have had some kind of mental aberration. This is not a scientific conclusion; this is just the only explanation that science can offer. This could as well be considered academic impotence; not the objective high road.

When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant.

 

[Joy Division]

You seem to be misunderstanding what's going on. There is enough doubt about testimonies and simple mundane explanations that make more sense. You seem to think that these accounts are just dismissed outright as if they didn't happen. This isn't the case, I don't doubt that these things actually happened or that people actually believed they happened. They are not however concrete evidence of the existence of psychic phenomena.

The most satisfying explanations for these experiences are ones that don't assume people are crazy, lying or hoaxing, but instead offer rational explanations for what did happen.

As for me calling psychics sillyness. Well that's just my opinion but it's formed from the fact that parapsychologists have been trying to prove that they are even have a phenomenon to study for 130 years to no real avail so far. Their methods are much better now but most research is still done behind closed doors making it hard to take seriously.

I will admit that parapsychologists are in a unique spot that they have to proove that their phenomenon exists before they can study it. Nobody had to prove that gravity existed to try to explain it.

To really and honestly prove that something is worthy of scientific attention you need to be able to put forward a theory for it that can be falsified.

It takes more of an open mind to say you're wrong, when real evidence comes up that you are, and accept a new belief because of that evidence. That's the position a skeptic is in. Otherwise you've already accepted something as true because it cannont be falsified and then try to find a different reason why you are right when contrary evidence comes up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
You seem to be misunderstanding what's going on. There is enough doubt about testimonies and simple mundane explanations that make more sense.

This is only your opinion. This is not a scientific fact.

You seem to think that these accounts are just dismissed outright as if they didn't happen. This isn't the case, I don't doubt that these things actually happened or that people actually believed they happened. They are not however concrete evidence of the existence of psychic phenomena.

I have never implied that this is scientific evidence. However, science is not defined in such a way so as to account for or even to address all truths.

The most satisfying explanations for these experiences are ones that don't assume people are crazy, lying or hoaxing, but instead offer rational explanations for what did happen.

This may be satifying, but it may not speak to the personal claims.

As for me calling psychics sillyness. Well that's just my opinion but it's formed from the fact that parapsychologists have been trying to prove that they are even have a phenomenon to study for 130 years to no real avail so far. Their methods are much better now but most research is still done behind closed doors making it hard to take seriously.

Perhaps we haven't done the right experiment. Perhaps some kind of Heisenbergian problem gets in the way. Many experiments are done in the open. The problem is, as soon as the subject is known attention is lost.

I will admit that parapsychologists are in a unique spot that they have to proove that their phenomenon exists before they can study it. Nobody had to prove that gravity existed to try to explain it.

To really and honestly prove that something is worthy of scientific attention you need to be able to put forward a theory for it that can be falsified.

Of course this assumes that all reality must meet our requirements for evidence. What if some truths can't be tested? Do we give people Prozac because we aren't smart enough to explain their experiences?

It takes more of an open mind to say you're wrong, when real evidence comes up that you are, and accept a new belief because of that evidence.

Belief is a religious concept. This is the essence of my objection.

That's the position a skeptic is in. Otherwise you've already accepted something as true because it cannont be falsified and then try to find a different reason why you are right when contrary evidence comes up.

However, you assign conclusions to our skeptic. This is not the job of the skeptic. The job is to question and doubt; not to conclude. Also, strickly speaking, science should be objective, not skeptical; this by the religious connotation indicated here:

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

This may be satifying, but it may not speak to the personal claims.

Again you're just not listening. I said that any explanation that does address the personal claims as not being fradulent but due to some other phenomenon is a better explanation.

Perhaps we haven't done the right experiment. Perhaps some kind of Heisenbergian problem gets in the way. Many experiments are done in the open. The problem is, as soon as the subject is known attention is lost.

See more excuses to continue YOUR belief. Any experiment that doesn't show signs of the phenomena they're looking for is dismissed as not being the right experiment. Not as evidence that the phenomena don't exist.

Of course this assumes that all reality must meet our requirements for evidence. What if some truths can't be tested? Do we give people Prozac because we aren't smart enough to explain their experiences?

You're the only one saying that everyone thinks these people are crazy and deserve to be locked away. I'm certainly not saying that. I'm just saying that their testemonials don't constitute scientific evidence because they're not subject to verification 100% of the time.

Belief is a religious concept. This is the essence of my objection.

You could say that. But again it's a misrepresntation. Whenever anyone makes a decision based on incomplete evidence it is a belief. The essence of applying the scientific method to your beliefs is that you're willing to change them when better evidence comes along.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan,
Faith is a religious concept. Be-
lief is not. Faith and belief are
not synonymous.

Joy,
I think your last sentence was well put and to the point.

-zoob

 

[jammieg]

I think you are both right, one seeing a need to dismiss the overwhelming nonsense of pseudoscience for more attention to proven or hard sciences and it's continuation, the other seeing a need not to dismissing anything as trivial but trying to filter through the vaste refuse of human speculation for little gems. If someone were to go back in time and try to tell people all about the discoveries of this century and how we lit up the entire world by harnessing those tiny things Democritus was talking about, and we went to the moon, and supported 6 billion people on Earth... On the other hand, if we were to build a library dedicated to all the crackpot ideas of humanity throughout the ages we would probably have to live underground. For a long time people claimed that singing to plants helped them grow and some people didn't believe it because it wasn't science, until science proved it. I think people like mystiscism because it feeds the emotions and imagination and gives a sense of wonder and awe and perhaps it is a basic human requirement to be mystified a bit, but then you get people like that crossing over guy and they have some special talent but the explanation for it's cause is probably much simpler and not nearly as exciting more like how a horse can learn to do math. Anything is possible, but to consider everything is impractical.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Joy Division:

"Why is it that people these days look so badly upon anybody that doesn't immediatly believe every claim brought before them?
One is urged to have an open mind, and this open mind is usually equated to believing without evidence."
----------------------------------
Joy Division,

It isn't just "these days". These
currents of belief in various un-
scientific things run in cycles
throughout history.

I think the answer to your first
question is that not believing
someone's extrordinary claim is
viewed by them as an aspersion on
their credibility. They feel you
are calling them a liar or a fool.

I am always surprised by this, my-
self. It seems that if peoples
ego and identity are so tied up
with potentially controversial
beliefs that they would excercize
more caution in bringing the sub-
ject up.

Your second observation about an
open mind actually being a euph-
emism for believing without evi-
dence, is a point well made. Not
even open mindedness is exempt
from becoming perverted into an
unofficially policed part of soc-
ial conformity. Urging someone to
have an open mind is sometimes
a person's way of saying their ego
is totally invested in a certain
belief and you had better not
cross them. Which is disturbing
and sad.

-zoob

 

[Joy Division]

Thanks for the replys.

The benefits of an open mind are quite obvious. The fact remains however. Scientists can still be fooled. Some even wrongly believe that their educations and intellects make them harder to fool than anyone else. This is also a dangerous type of thinking.

I think it is true that everyone needs a little bit of mystery in their lives. Where you get that depends on who you are. It may be that science is partly to blame for the way people think. Perhaps scientists wanting to share the things that give their lives mystery have given people the impression that the universe doesn't make any sense and that anything is possible.

I don't think everyone can think the way I do. I don't expect it. I would hope though that people had a little more trust in science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Again you're just not listening. I said that any explanation that does address the personal claims as not being fradulent but due to some other phenomenon is a better explanation.

It is an explanation. This surely accounts for many personal experiences. This does not justify the claim that all other options are silliness. You know, when I first objected to your statements, if you would have said, yes it is just my personal opinion that this is all silliness, I would have been done.

See more excuses to continue YOUR belief.

What belief? What belief have I expressed here? It does seem as though you wish to make this the argument in order to make your position appear to be the objective point of view, but I keep telling you that I am not promoting any beliefs. I am promoting objectivity and open mindedness. The fact is, I think nearly all "psychics" are con artists. I tend to think that some truth lies at the heart of this issue, but I also think it is possible that there is nothing to it at all. I haven't made up my mind…of course this is just my personal opinion.

Any experiment that doesn't show signs of the phenomena they're looking for is dismissed as not being the right experiment. Not as evidence that the phenomena don't exist.

I never said this; I said perhaps. If find it interesting that you refuse to keep my statements within the proper context. I was only offering alternatives. Should I assume that you can offer objective proof that all avenues for experiment have been explored here?

You're the only one saying that everyone thinks these people are crazy and deserve to be locked away. I'm certainly not saying that. I'm just saying that their testemonials don't constitute scientific evidence because they're not subject to verification 100% of the time.

I never said anything about locking people away. I never suggested that their testimony should qualify as scientific evidence. You only wish that this is what I said.

You could say that. But again it's a misrepresntation. Whenever anyone makes a decision based on incomplete evidence it is a belief. The essence of applying the scientific method to your beliefs is that you're willing to change them when better evidence comes along.

I will defer to Seth Shostack and the SETI crowd: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” When lacking evidence to support or to disprove some particular claim of personal experience, science has nothing to say. We can speculate and we can form personal opinions, but to assert those opinions as objective truth is a misapplication of the scientific method. It is nothing less than pushing a religion under the guise of science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,
Faith is a religious concept. Be-
lief is not. Faith and belief are
not synonymous.

Joy,
I think your last sentence was well put and to the point.

-zoob

Nothing can be proven beyond all doubt. Any belief is ultimately based on some leap of faith. Surely we accept many beliefs as true do to the overwhelming evidence for such. For example, I believe that if I drop a ball it will fall; being in normal gravity etc. However, Joy's example hardly qualifies as anything so obvious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by jammieg
I think you are both right, one seeing a need to dismiss the overwhelming nonsense of pseudoscience for more attention to proven or hard sciences and it's continuation, the other seeing a need not to dismissing anything as trivial but trying to filter through the vaste refuse of human speculation for little gems. If someone were to go back in time and try to tell people all about the discoveries of this century and how we lit up the entire world by harnessing those tiny things Democritus was talking about, and we went to the moon, and supported 6 billion people on Earth... On the other hand, if we were to build a library dedicated to all the crackpot ideas of humanity throughout the ages we would probably have to live underground. For a long time people claimed that singing to plants helped them grow and some people didn't believe it because it wasn't science, until science proved it. I think people like mystiscism because it feeds the emotions and imagination and gives a sense of wonder and awe and perhaps it is a basic human requirement to be mystified a bit, but then you get people like that crossing over guy and they have some special talent but the explanation for it's cause is probably much simpler and not nearly as exciting more like how a horse can learn to do math. Anything is possible, but to consider everything is impractical.

However this has not been the issue. This is about drawing conclusion based on not evidence, but a lack evidence.

What great demands have been made of science here? Has it been suggested that anything should be done at all? Have I made the assertion that we should catalog the words of John Edwards [whom I just roasted in the ps section] for future prosperity? What exactly do you agree with; that we decide what is and is not possible - right now and forevermore? You suport that we define exactly what is silly for all of science; based on what evidence?

Please specify that which is real and that which is not real. Please offer supporting evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Thanks for the replys.

The benefits of an open mind are quite obvious. The fact remains however. Scientists can still be fooled.

True.

Some even wrongly believe that their educations and intellects make them harder to fool than anyone else. This is also a dangerous type of thinking.

True.

I think it is true that everyone needs a little bit of mystery in their lives. Where you get that depends on who you are. It may be that science is partly to blame for the way people think. Perhaps scientists wanting to share the things that give their lives mystery have given people the impression that the universe doesn't make any sense and that anything is possible.

I don't think everyone can think the way I do. I don't expect it. I would hope though that people had a little more trust in science.

Science has shown us that many mysteries remain. Science does not have all of the answers.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan,
You said:
"Science has shown us that many mysteries remain. Science does not have all of the answers."
Is this what appeals to you about
science?
-zoob

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,
You said:
"Science has shown us that many mysteries remain. Science does not have all of the answers."
Is this what appeals to you about
science?
-zoob

I would say that it is the desire for understanding. One of my darkest days in the physics department was when I realized how much can never be known. It took ten years of physics [formal and informal] for me to finally realize this. I went to school for answers. I wanted to know the GUT or TOE; I wanted to understand everything. Alas, this is not what science offers. Science seeks to develope mathematical models that predict the correct results.

Edit: Don't misunderstand. I live for science. But like all things, science has its limits and its proper place as a matter of perspective.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan,

"Alas"?

-zoob

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

"Alas"?

-zoob

It was a great disappointment to realize that many mysteries will likely always remain. Even though I love a good mystery, I like answers better. At one time I thought physics would lead to objective truth. I had a great misconception about the limits of science. Also, this is funny really, I always assumed that some kind of absolute say must exist as to true and false claims. I guess I expected to be given a phone number for the physics police that I could call for "the" truth - I'm joking of course but still the idea is basically correct. So after receiving my degree, not only did I not have the answers that I had hoped for, not did I know realize that some answers may never be known, but I was never even given a number to call to check the credibility of scientific claims.

Ain't it great!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ever read "Zen in the Art of Motor
cycle Maintainence"?"Alas"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ever read "Zen in the Art of Motor
cycle Maintainence"?


"Alas"?

No. One of my best friends harped on me about this for years and I still haven't read it. I know we had some lengthy discussions about the book. Why? I may recognize the context of your allusion with a little memory jogging.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The connection to your story being
disapointment with education.

Guy majors in philosophy but sud-
denly realizes that one of the
dialogs of plato (Or Socrates?)
has been misinterpreted grossly
by the academic community for
years. He tells his teacher but
is blown off-the guy doesn't care.

The student goes into major shock.
He doesn't know how to accept the
fact that all these "authorities"
are so wrong. His world crumbles.
He lies down.

He's still lying down about two
weeks later when someone finds
him, still in total shock. He
hasen't even left bed to go to
the bathroom. They take him to
the looneybin. True story.

The rest of the book is how he
puts his life back together."Alas"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The connection to your story being
disapointment with education.

Guy majors in philosophy but sud-
denly realizes that one of the
dialogs of plato (Or Socrates?)
has been misinterpreted grossly
by the academic community for
years. He tells his teacher but
is blown off-the guy doesn't care.

The student goes into major shock.
He doesn't know how to accept the
fact that all these "authorities"
are so wrong. His world crumbles.
He lies down.

He's still lying down about two
weeks later when someone finds
him, still in total shock. He
hasen't even left bed to go to
the bathroom. They take him to
the looneybin. True story.

The rest of the book is how he
puts his life back together.


"Alas"?

Not that big of an alas!

I have learned to find the joy in knowing, and in not knowing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.

Sorry, I just did.

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I went to school for answers. I wanted to know the GUT or TOE; I wanted to understand everything. Alas, this is not what science offers. Science seeks to develope mathematical models that predict the correct results.

What on Earth made you think you could learn the TOE when one doesn't exist right now and likely will not for a long time? I'm just wondering that's all.

There could exist things which can't be exlained by science. There might also not be any. Demanding answers right this instant, is a bad idea. Science proceeds trying to find answers to everything, but only the collective body of science has a chance at explaining everything we see. Not just one person. Not now at least. One of the assumptions science makes is that most everything can be explained. First you try to explain it, keep trying until you have an answer or the problem is proven to have no solution.

The way I see it there are real mysteries out there, effects that have actually been seen but not explained that need answers. We don't need to make up new ones and try to find if there is really something to explain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


Sorry, I just did.

My point, exactly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
What on Earth made you think you could learn the TOE when one doesn't exist right now and likely will not for a long time? I'm just wondering that's all.

As a much younger man I believed that we were close. I expected to work through physics and to be a part of this era - of unifying QM with GR. I still think that we may be close, but my confidence is much lower now. I think we may be a long way from a truly unified theory of everything; if it can exist.

There could exist things which can't be exlained by science. There might also not be any. Demanding answers right this instant, is a bad idea. Science proceeds trying to find answers to everything, but only the collective body of science has a chance at explaining everything we see. Not just one person. Not now at least. One of the assumptions science makes is that most everything can be explained. First you try to explain it, keep trying until you have an answer or the problem is proven to have no solution.

The way I see it there are real mysteries out there, effects that have actually been seen but not explained that need answers. We don't need to make up new ones and try to find if there is really something to explain. [/B]

I completely understand the objections to mystics and pseudo science. Science led us out of the dark ages. Newton showed us a set of laws that make sense and that govern the physical world. We have since learned that reality is much more complex than Newton ever imagined. I wouldn't expect the average scientist to waste a moment of time on the immense reservoir or cr"pola that sells and sells and sells. My only contention is this: QM has shown us that our minds are not very good at recognizing how things work. We are not good at anticipating physical laws and truths; we must discover them through experiment and the rigor of mathematics. I have chosen to root through the cr"p for the occasional gem of truth. I find this interesting, entertaining a times to the point of being downright hilarious, and on rare occasion, revealing. I have found many obscure scientific truths in digging through this stuff. Mainstream scientists have often been quite surprised by what I have discovered [run across in the lit]. I try to allow that even the wildest claim might make sense if viewed in the proper context. But, not for a moment do I think that science should assume any position on claims of personal experience unless and until physical, testable evidence is presented to support that particular claim. Until that time may come, I say no comment...of course this is only my opinion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant.

Agreed.

 

[FZ+]

But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

I said not just ignore, but condemn. There is a big difference between saying that no scientific evidence exist to support a claim, and claiming that something is false based solely on a lack of evidence. Nowhere in logic does a lack of evidence qualify as evidence. I know for a fact that I have experienced many things that I can never prove. For how many of your life's experiences could you offer scientific proof?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

And yet it's all about the "mechanical truth," not the "animated truth" (life itself) which lies beyond the mechanics.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I said not just ignore, but condemn. There is a big difference between saying that no scientific evidence exist to support a claim, and claiming that something is false based solely on a lack of evidence. Nowhere in logic does a lack of evidence qualify as evidence. I know for a fact that I have experienced many things that I can never prove. For how many of your life's experiences could you offer scientific proof?

True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

If science has nothing objective to say because no evidence exists to support a claim, then until evidence is presented, the science doesn't matter.

Consider the claims of ghosts. Many explanations for ghosts might be imagined. Many claims of personal experience may be explainable through physiology or psychology. But science cannot prove that ghosts do not exist. If someone or group of people claim to have had a first hand encounter with spirits, unless direct evidence exists to the contrary, what can be said of the science except that nothing can be said? This is the science of the thing. Just because other explanations may exist, this does not mean that we can convict our claimants as delusional or dishonest. Of course one might consider all such claim as bogus but this is a personal opinion. Without any direct evidence relating to a particular claim, science can't have much to say about spirits or those who meet them.

 

[Iacchus32]

Grubbing in the Dark?

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.

Hey I admit, my body is subject to gravity just like everybody else's. That's what makes it so difficult to explain. And yet caterpillars do turn into butterflies.

Of course in that sense you can say the animated truth "arose" from the mechanical truth. And yet, if the animated truth didn't exist first, there would be nothing to lay the eggs to spawn the mechanical truth. In other words butterflies procreate and caterpillars don't.

So it's really an illusion that we seem to be playing with here -- due to our being earthbound -- much like grubs grubbing in the dark!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

By definition, using logic, we can never prove a negative. This means that we can never prove that psychics don't exist.

Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, although it is often harder. I don't know where this fallacy came from, but it is very prevalent.

For example, I can prove that I didn't buy my bicyle new at Wal-Mar if I prove that I bought it new at the local bike shop.

Likewise, if you can prove the logical inconsistancy of the existence of some object or entity with the qualities it is described to have, you can conclude that that object doesn't exist.
-------------------------------
To get back on topic...

I agree that there needs to be more skepticism, although I don't think that most people in the Western, 1st-world countries believe in psychics. However, people are prone to taking any little thing as evidence of supernatural or whatever else fits into their theories, especially when it comes to their defined religion. Especially when you realize the illusions that "magicians" can pull off, for example, you should use skepticism to evaluate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, although it is often harder. I don't know where this fallacy came from, but it is very prevalent.

For example, I can prove that I didn't buy my bicyle new at Wal-Mar if I prove that I bought it new at the local bike shop.

This is proving a positive. We can then ignore contradictary statements.

Likewise, if you can prove the logical inconsistancy of the existence of some object or entity with the qualities it is described to have, you can conclude that that object doesn't exist.

I would say that you can reasonably conclude; not strictly a logical proof. But I don't really mean to argue this as a fine point.

I agree that there needs to be more skepticism, although I don't think that most people in the Western, 1st-world countries believe in psychics. However, people are prone to taking any little thing as evidence of supernatural or whatever else fits into their theories, especially when it comes to their defined religion.

This can be very true. What is not true is the notion that this speaks to the evidence for many claims.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If science has nothing objective to say because no evidence exists to support a claim, then until evidence is presented, the science doesn't matter.

Grr... you forced me into agreement here.(Damn you! ) You shouldn't give the misleading impression of having truth, yes. But I still feel a duty (tacky as it sounds) to point out when people declare they have the truth when they do not, when people say - there are ghosts!, I think it is right of me to say that you don't have enough evidence to make that claim, or that theory X and experiment Y get in your way.

If it is an observation made, then yes, theory can not attack that. But if it is a claim, or a conclusion, or a theory, put into the public domain, then it is important that all sides are heard, and dubious certainties dispeled in favour of more probable ones - they have chosen to bring what they say into the open air, after all.

They must bear da konsequences of that aktion!