FLUKEY OR SPOOKY? Incredible real-life coincidences or are they?

[nismaratwork]

Not so odd when you consider that a meteorite was found with what appears to be primitive life in fossil form in it and that it is proven to be from mars... which is our very distant neighbour.

The coincidence is that someone actually found it(!) its from mars, it flew off of Mars during a massive impact and landed on earth. That is a "needle in the haystack" sort of occurrence.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html

Even then, given the nature of geology, the number of people on land, and the total period of time during which the Earth is constantly bombarded...? It seems the argument expands even beyond that... finding such a meteorite, given the search, can be further contextualized.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even then, given the nature of geology, the number of people on land, and the total period of time during which the Earth is constantly bombarded...? It seems the argument expands even beyond that... finding such a meteorite, given the search, can be further contextualized.

Well, the other thing to do is to work it backwards.

Given that we did find a meteorite with such circumstances, how common was the initial event? It would suggest that the Earth has been riddled with Martian meteorties containing similar artifacts.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, the other thing to do is to work it backwards.

Given that we did find a meteorite with such circumstances, how common was the initial event? It would suggest that the Earth has been riddled with Martian meteorties containing similar artifacts.

BUZZKILL! I call buzzkill on you...

That was supposed to be the clever point of my Socratic inquiry.


...
...
...

I have to work on delivery of Socratic questioning.
:sad:

 

[Dav333]

Ages ago I tried to guess someones password in a popular pay online game. I just typed/spammed gibberish on the keyboard & hit enter it was the password. I quickly logged back out. Of course no one believed me.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ages ago I tried to guess someones password in a popular pay online game. I just typed/spammed gibberish on the keyboard & hit enter it was the password. I quickly logged back out. Of course no one believed me.

It's unlikely, but is it more so than picking numbers in the lottery? I believe you; it's not glamorous, you're not claiming special powers... just relaying an experience. What's not believe? If you claimed to be able to repeat this any time, THAT would be unbelievable.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

Is there a police report? Is there any actual evidence other then the testimonies of the people who it happened to? A lot of people saw the lochness monster and ufos don't worry I know they were just crazy also.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is there a police report? Is there any actual evidence other then the testimonies of the people who it happened to? A lot of people saw the lochness monster and ufos don't worry I know they were just crazy also.

Clearly I'm not buying any of the "spooky", but there's no science in what you say. In fact, your conclusions have been shown to be wrong, time and time again. The fact is that most people who have these experiences aren't "crazy", they just believe their own narrative for the experience more than any other. If you experience what feels like being awake, completely paralyzed, surrounded by lights while the world shakes... if you don't know about hypnopompic/gogic hallucination you'd soil yourself!

A lack of education, or believing what you experienced over the word of even well-meaning others doesn't make you crazy, just mistaken. Part of the point, hell, THE point of this thread and the entire concept behind it is to EXPLAIN those events, or at least examine them. If you can't, and your only retreat is to insult those using this for the exact purpose of the threads... Go away. You're hardly necessary to this endeavor; in fact, it doesn't seem as though you've even read the last two threads you posted in, except to skim the latest few posts. Maybe you think you're settling something, but you're just giving ammunition to people who want to frame skeptics, as cynics... like you.

 

[baywax]

Well, the other thing to do is to work it backwards.

Given that we did find a meteorite with such circumstances, how common was the initial event? It would suggest that the Earth has been riddled with Martian meteorties containing similar artifacts.

That would be like working backwards from today and saying that since humans did build skyscrapers, highways and space shuttles in modern day this suggests humans have reached such a similar plethoric pinnacle of engineering in the past. There's no reason to arrive at this conclusion based on this kind of logic. Finding the Mars fossil ridden meteor is more like a fluke!

 

[nismaratwork]

That would be like working backwards from today and saying that since humans did build skyscrapers, highways and space shuttles in modern day this suggests humans have reached such a similar plethoric pinnacle of engineering in the past. There's no reason to arrive at this conclusion based on this kind of logic. Finding the Mars fossil ridden meteor is more like a fluke!

This a common misunderstanding in cosmology/astronomy/astrophysics. Given the apparent scope of the universe, find one, and you have many more, which is why people would be so thrilled (well one reason) to find just ONE confirmed zeno-organism of ANY kind, or even organic chemistry!

Earth isn't the universe, but given how often we're pummeled by dust and rock, a portion of which is from our close-buddy Mars which shows evidence of being shot to hell by bombardment. So... you find one "mars rock" on earth, and it's amazing... two... not so much. Remember, you FOUND them, it's not all the mars-rock there is on earth. It's possible that this was a fluke, but from what we know of Earth's history and present bombardment from 'around Marsy-way' would seem to indicate that this is NOT a unique event or object; finding it may be.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

Clearly I'm not buying any of the "spooky", but there's no science in what you say. In fact, your conclusions have been shown to be wrong, time and time again. The fact is that most people who have these experiences aren't "crazy", they just believe their own narrative for the experience more than any other. If you experience what feels like being awake, completely paralyzed, surrounded by lights while the world shakes... if you don't know about hypnopompic/gogic hallucination you'd soil yourself!

A lack of education, or believing what you experienced over the word of even well-meaning others doesn't make you crazy, just mistaken. Part of the point, hell, THE point of this thread and the entire concept behind it is to EXPLAIN those events, or at least examine them. If you can't, and your only retreat is to insult those using this for the exact purpose of the threads... Go away. You're hardly necessary to this endeavor; in fact, it doesn't seem as though you've even read the last two threads you posted in, except to skim the latest few posts. Maybe you think you're settling something, but you're just giving ammunition to people who want to frame skeptics, as cynics... like you.

That's not true, because guess what NO REAL SKEPTICS would even look at information like this they already know it's false claims or maybe chance or maybe lying. It's like ghost hunters, Monster hunters, and people who hunt for aliens on totally scientific grounds guess what those people aren't real skeptics because real skeptics know that starting that endeavor is insane because it's false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's not true, because guess what NO REAL SKEPTICS would even look at information like this they already know it's false claims or maybe chance or maybe lying. It's like ghost hunters, Monster hunters, and people who hunt for aliens on totally scientific grounds guess what those people aren't real skeptics because real skeptics know that starting that endeavor is insane because it's false.

This is probably the most applicable definition of skeptic

skep·tic
3.a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted

http://www.yourdictionary.com/skeptic

To doubt and question are not judgements. And you are clearly not suspending judgement, you are passing judgement.

How is your statement consistent with the definition?

 

[SpeedOfDark]

This is probably the most applicable definition of skeptic


http://www.yourdictionary.com/skeptic

To doubt and question are not judgements. And you are clearly not suspending judgement, you are passing judgement.

How is your statement consistent with the definition?

These matters are generally accepted, they're entirely ludicrous are you telling me the lochness monster is generally accepted? No, therefore I would wave that off as well as I would wave these off for the fact that they're not generally accepted.

Being skeptical of something like Secondhand Smoke, recycling, and free speech in america is something to be skeptical of and something I AM Skeptical of and understand why people believe. Scholarly folks and intelligent minds don't believe in these "real - life coincidences" proposed to us, since they're obvious schwim-schwammery.

I found a different definition also

skep·tic   /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled
[skep-tik] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. ( initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.


That seems like me DOUBTING THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY OF SOMETHING PURPORTING TO BE FACTUAL.

I've yet to see any evidence that I even have yet to be skeptical about, and that's much harder to try to look over and decide whether it is bogus or real. All I've heard so far on this forum is simply statements that people are making without ANY EVIDENCE and expect me to believe it. Sorry that's just not going to happen, not in my world, not in the world of a real skeptic, and not in the world of science. We don't just believe things people say, and try to find evidence for it, we hear the claims people say and their evidence to support it generally evidence is skepticised but we haven't even made it to the point of presenting doubtible evidence.

 

[JaredJames]

Being skeptical of something like Secondhand Smoke, recycling, and free speech in america is something to be skeptical of and something I AM Skeptical of and understand why people believe. Scholarly folks and intelligent minds don't believe in these "real - life coincidences" proposed to us, since they're obvious schwim-schwammery.

Skeptical of second hand smoke and recycling? Wow, just wow.

Remember, it's the "scholarly folks and intelligent minds" that came up with the above.

Also, are you implying those who study certain things aren't intelligent? That seems to be something you'd have a hard time proving. In fact, if it isn't studied an "intelligent mind" can't give a view point as there's nothing to base it on.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's not true, because guess what NO REAL SKEPTICS would even look at information like this they already know it's false claims or maybe chance or maybe lying. It's like ghost hunters, Monster hunters, and people who hunt for aliens on totally scientific grounds guess what those people aren't real skeptics because real skeptics know that starting that endeavor is insane because it's false.

It's good to have you out there, defining beyond language or the history of the term and philosophy, what a skeptic is and does.

Sure, it's just your own private definition, but it's YOURS... don't lose that!

The rest, Ivan has covered, Jared covered, and frankly you should already know.

P.S. The whole point, by the way, of Skepticism... We DON'T KNOW. You EXAMINE. Again, get a dictionary, look up cynic and skeptic: you're that clearly a cynic without a desire to move outside of this nearly religious "comfort" zone to examine claims. OK... don't, but then hell man, don't post in S&D!

edit: You did get a dictionary, and you ignored the FIRST definition? "QUESTIONS".. not "ASSUMES OR KNOWS".

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

I had a dream once that my cat was dying.

We didn't know why, she wasn't obviously sick or injured or anything, the feeling in the dream was just that she was dying. We took her to the vet, they couldn't do anything about it. She just kept getting worse, and worse..

And then I woke up. Needless to say I was quite disturbed by this dream; I am quite fond of her. So I searched the house for her.

Didn't take long. She was curled up in a basket of towels (getting her hair all in them like usual). I poked her to see if she was alright, and then she looked up at me with that look. You cat owners should know it, the look that says "What the hell are you bugging me for? Can't you see I was sleeping here?"

She was perfectly fine (still is, in fact). Nothing wrong with her. My dream was just a dream, nothing more.

It still worried me enough that I bothered to look up what the average lifespan of a house cat is though.

The biggest problem with "coincidences" like this is the law of large numbers, along with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)" thing. For every person you hear about whose dream predicted the death of their grandmother or something, there's probably hundreds or thousands of people like me whose "prophetic" dreams were totally meaningless.

Unless they are consistently and reliably repeatable, they are nothing more than freak statistical coincidences, nothing more. They happen all the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unless they are consistently and reliably repeatable, they are nothing more than freak statistical coincidences, nothing more. They happen all the time.

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

 

[nismaratwork]

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

True, it's not worth assuming that this is nonexistant, only that no evidence exists to support the claim. The question then is, in the absence of evidence, why believe?... if evidence emerges, then that equation changes of course. If this is forever undetectable, then... it's as good for us as nonexistant unless it can be explored indirectly.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

I've not really learned much about Quantum Mechanics, outside the stuff in SciAm articles and various popular science books (I try to stay away from the New Agey pseudo-philosophical garbage and stick to respectable sounding stuff), so I don't really know any QM equations. Do you mean that according to QM, those events are only allowed to happen once during the lifetime of the universe, or only probable to happen once in the lifetime of the universe. Could you give an example of said phenomenon?

Even if it is possible for some events to only happen once, we wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from those events. Your QM example seems a little off of the point I was trying to make, like it's going the "wrong way", so to speak; from theory -> unlikely prediction instead of from unlikely observation -> theory. Let's see if I can word this like I was thinking of it...

Take one of these highly unlikely, once-an-eternity events, and suppose it was empirically observed to have occurred twice in rapid succession, say 10 years between the two observations. Assume that both observations are accurate, reliable and correct; there's no doubt about what was seen. The event cannot be reproduced by any means, and analysis of the data does not suggest that there was any unknown factor affecting the frequency of the event. All that is known is 1) The event was observed to have happened twice and 2) theory predicts that this is very, very, very, very, very, very (ad infinitum) unlikely to have happened by chance.

Would such a freakish coincidence be enough to call QM into doubt? Or would it be reasonable to dismiss these observations as a mere coincidence, despite its unimaginably low probability?

If it can't be reproduced under controlled circumstances, it can't really be studied, so you can't draw very many conclusions from it. All you can do is say "It was a coincidence" and move on, at least until other data arrives. I believe that's the point I was trying to make. And I might still not be making it very well, or I could be totally wrong. I'm open to both possibilities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the statement about QM: One can use QM to calculate the odds of various events occurring over some interval of time. There are some freaky-strange things that QM allows for but only very rarely - so rare that it might only happen once over a span of billions of years. The point of that is that existence does not require repeatability, scientific verifcation does.

The point of my post was to make the distinction between those things that we ASSUME, and those that we actually know. Assumptions are not a priori, facts. We assume that all such claims can be attributed to statistics, but it is an assumption.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True, it's not worth assuming that this is nonexistant, only that no evidence exists to support the claim. The question then is, in the absence of evidence, why believe?... if evidence emerges, then that equation changes of course. If this is forever undetectable, then... it's as good for us as nonexistant unless it can be explored indirectly.

Yes, I was only concerned that the facts are correctly represented. There is a common myth that arises by default that assumptions are facts.

Belief is a personal choice based on how one weights the evidence. It is at least conceivable that some people have real and inexplicable experiences with no way to prove it. For them, belief might be justified because they lived it. For the rest of us, it is an anecdote that carries little logical weight. In the case of apparent extreme coincidences, I doubt the leap of faith that these are more than statistical flukes, is logically justified for anyone.

I try to approach things from an even more pragmatic perspective: Belief plays no role either way. It has no place here. It is possible that there is more to some claims than we think -this cannot be logically rejected - but at this time there is no way to show evidence for that. Lacking scientific evidence or model to support a given claim, we assume it is all in the odds. That's all that can be said. No reference to "belief" was needed.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

I think I get your point now.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I was only concerned that the facts are correctly represented. There is a common myth that arises by default that assumptions are facts.

Belief is a personal choice based on how one weights the evidence. It is at least conceivable that some people have real and inexplicable experiences with no way to prove it. For them, belief might be justified because they lived it. For the rest of us, it is an anecdote that carries little logical weight. In the case of apparent extreme coincidences, I doubt the leap of faith that these are more than statistical flukes, is logically justified for anyone.

I try to approach things from an even more pragmatic perspective: Belief plays no role either way. It has no place here. It is possible that there is more to some claims than we think -this cannot be logically rejected - but at this time there is no way to show evidence for that. Lacking scientific evidence or model to support a given claim, we assume it is all in the odds. That's all that can be said. No reference to "belief" was needed.

Yep, I'm with you, and the belief "state" we're each in, as long as we're committed to the skeptical process, is only something to discuss in casual settings anyway. Your separation of the two is something I must say, I admire.

 

[ibrakeforcake]

i experienced a weird coincidence at the weekend.

i bought two books from two separate stalls at a car boot fair.

one was Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas

the other was Coral by Steve Jones, the celebrated biologist;

the first chapter of Coral was all about the influence on Steve Jones of ... Under Milk Wood...

i was like OMG ( i wasn't really because i am not a 14 year old girl ! )

this is a genuine report of a weird experience.

ibfc

 

[Antiphon]

If they are both books about biology then it's not so odd. If they are about totally unrelated fields then its odder.

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, I agree with the above.

It sounds like you have certain tastes and the fact you happened upon two books that match them isn't that amazing.

 

[skeptic2]

I ran out of gas in winter when it was really cold where there were no gas stations nearby. I was sitting in my car trying to decide in which direction I should walk when a tow truck pulled up in front of me and stopped. Instead of offering me a tow, he wanted directions to an address which was about 10 miles away and happened to be the same building where a friend of mine worked. I told him I'd take him there if he'd tow me to a gas station.

 

[Antiphon]

Is the skeptic(2) now a believer?

 

[skeptic2]

Possibly.

 

[ibrakeforcake]

If they are both books about biology then it's not so odd. If they are about totally unrelated fields then its odder.

that was part of the weirdness... Under Milk Wood is a play written in the 1950s

Coral is a book about coral by a biologist... i don't think you can get much more unrelated than that !

ibfc

 

[Darken-Sol]

i seem tspend exactly ten dollars on random goods more often than any other number... well according to journal entries. also i seen a license plate on a semi that had my birthday(1241982) except the first 1 was a J. which i interpreted as january.

 

[JaredJames]

that was part of the weirdness... Under Milk Wood is a play written in the 1950s

Coral is a book about coral by a biologist... i don't think you can get much more unrelated than that !

The fact that one book was inspired by the other means they aren't unrelated - so if you are interested in the one, chances are the other may hold your attention for a bit. So it's really not that mysterious.

i seem tspend exactly ten dollars on random goods more often than any other number... well according to journal entries.

So you don't know what you actually spend on goods, you're just assuming it's ten dollars because a journal says so?

Still, it's a pretty round number and most things I encounter on a daily basis fall within that range so it's not surprising I'd find myself spending it a lot - consider petrol, unless on a long drive I always put £10.

also i seen a license plate on a semi that had my birthday(1241982) except the first 1 was a J. which i interpreted as january.

Numbers can be made to show anything you want them to. You did it yourself by making the J into what you wanted it to be.

 

[Evo]

A few years ago I was driving home from work and a car in the next lane had a custom license plate PFSIS4U. I posted about it in the forum.

That was weid, we had just formed the PF Sisterhood.

 

[JaredJames]

A few years ago I was driving home for work and a car in the next lane had a custom license plate PFSIS4U. I posted about it in the forum.

That was weid, we had just formed the PF Sisterhood.

I'm always wondering how many people sat around me have used or use PF.

Wherever I go, particularly high traffic areas, I'm always curious.

I could be stood next to one of the big names here and not know it.

 

[Evo]

I'm always wondering how many people sat around me have used or use PF.

Wherever I go, particularly high traffic areas, I'm always curious.

I could be stood next to one of the big names here and not know it.

It was probably PFS IS 4 U, there is a company here called PFS, but since it was all typed together PFSIS4U, it meant something different to me.

 

[JaredJames]

It was probably PFS IS 4 U, there is a company here called PFS, but since it was all typed together PFSIS4U, it meant something different to me.

You never know, could have been one of your sisterhood showing their support.

It's a long shot, but I've seen enough crazy stuff to make me realize anything is possible.