'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[turtle]

Some time ago I came across this suggestion for a new definition of terms in Fortean Times magazine. The recent discussion on the other thread "Challenge to Skeptics" inspired me to post this here. (I thought it better to start a new thread instead of further jumbling up the topics over there.)


"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02

Language changes all the time. I have mixed feelings about that. For example, "funner' is not a word, and I don't care how often it's used and some dictionaries include it. Simply because it's in the dicitonary doesn't mean it's legitimate.

Words have specific meanings, and need to be used correctly. We're all guilty of getting sloppy, or assumng the other person has the same defintion we do when discussing things. Especially the paranormal!

On the other hand, language does change, words take on different meanings over time. (The word "gay" is an example. ) Language is not at all set in stone, never to change.

Whether or not the literalness of new definitions for skeptic etc is the point, I think the intent of FT was to get people to entertain the idea of the various types of skeptics. Just like there are various types of "woos," believers, etc.

So, this should be interesting! I hope.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by turtle
Some time ago I came across this suggestion for a new definition of terms in Fortean Times magazine. The recent discussion on the other thread "Challenge to Skeptics" inspired me to post this here. (I thought it better to start a new thread instead of further jumbling up the topics over there.)


"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02


Yawn. Yet another tedious little argument by strawman.

You drop a thousand euros in the center of a football pitch.

In one corner is the Easter bunny. In a second corner is Father Christmas. In a third corner is a so-called "skeptic." In the fourth corner is a so-called "sceptic." Which one gets the money?

Answer : The so-called "sceptic." Because the other three don't exist!

[Vortex]

Originally posted by turtle
So, this should be interesting! I hope.
Nope, it's just stupid.

[Dr Adequate]

Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw.

[turtle]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yawn. Yet another tedious little argument by strawman.

You drop a thousand euros in the center of a football pitch.

In one corner is the Easter bunny. In a second corner is Father Christmas. In a third corner is a so-called "skeptic." In the fourth corner is a so-called "sceptic." Which one gets the money?

Answer : The so-called "sceptic." Because the other three don't exist!

?? Post makes no sense. I made no mention of Easter Bunnies, etc. Are you denying, then, that there are no degrees of skepticism?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Vortex
Nope, it's just stupid.

Well, that's an enlightening comment. Care to say why you think "it's stupid?" I'll ask you the same question: you deny then that there are types of skeptics, from mild mannered, lol, to the more "militant?" All skeptics are the same, eh? that's about the only group in the world that is, then, I guess.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by turtle
?? Post makes no sense. I made no mention of East Bunnies, etc. Are you denying, then, that there are no degrees of skepticism?

Yes. I specifically deny that you can produce a meaningful one-dimensional distribution of "skepticism." I also specifically deny that the "skeptic"/"sceptic" distinction you try to draw exists. I also specifically deny that any such person exists who would claim that "most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible."

And I also agree, with Vortex, that the whole idea is stupid.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw.

No problem :D

How about this description of a Prometheus Book called 'A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism' (Prometheus Books and CSICOP have the same founder Paul Kurtz)


[i]
The laws of physics provide clear-cut principles defining what is possible - and not possible - in the physical world. This book examines and critiques many widely held pseudoscientific beliefs in light of these laws. Rather than treating supernatural claims on a case-by-case basis, Milton Rothman uses the general principles supplied by physics to show why they are, in fact, impossible.

Rothman divides the laws of physics into two classes: laws of permission and laws of denial. Laws of permission, such as Newton's laws of motion, generally do not allow precise predictions except in the simplest cases. Laws of denial, such as conservation of energy, permit very accurate conclusions about what cannot possibly occur.

He uses these concepts to examine and critique the possible existence of various paranormal phenomena, such as UFOs, telepathy, perpetual motion machines, poltergeists, etc. He also discusses a number of concepts traditional to science fiction: anti-gravity, faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc., which are shown to be impossible when subject to rigorous examination.
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_652.html


Yes closed minded sKepticism is alive and well ..... ;)

[Garrette]

It seems to me, turtle, that you and the quoted article are mixing personality types and belief systems.

To paraphrase: This sceptic is too harsh for my liking, therefore he is a sKeptic and closed-minded.

Of course there are widely differing personality types among skeptics just as there are among believers, but unless you can address the arguments of a skeptic or believer you are guilty yourself of closed-mindedness. (Assuming, of course, that there is an argument to address; there often is not, and we are left trying to refute simple assertion).

[turtle]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yes. I specifically deny that you can produce a meaningful one-dimensional distribution of "skepticism." I also specifically deny that the "skeptic"/"sceptic" distinction you try to draw exists. I also specifically deny that any such person exists who would claim that "most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible."

And I also agree, with Vortex, that the whole idea is stupid.

First of all, I am not trying to draw any kind of line. I am quoting from an editorial comment from a magazine that I find very interesting.

Secondly, what is "stupid" about the idea that within any group there are degrees? If you truly deny that, that is simply ignorant. Or naive.

[Garrette]

Open Mind,

I think you are mistaken. I think the definition of a priori we are discussing, and which we agree is misplaced, is this (from Merriam Webster):

being without examination or analysis

The quoted book seems to be the opposite in that the author has examined and analyzed general (purported) phenomena and found them in violation of well known tenets.

As an example, am I dismissing a priori an idea if I say that "If I hold a ball in my hand and let go it will rise instead of fall. This happens only in my own backyard?"

I don't think so.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Open Mind

How about this description of a Prometheus Book called 'A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism' (Prometheus Books and CSICOP have the same founder Paul Kurtz)


You've shown someone who has been described as holding this position. The author of the book review claims that the author of the book (Rothman) holds this position. Not at all the same thing.

Furthermore, he is is only described as showing things to be impossible "when subject to rigorous examination." Not exactly a priori according to the conventional meaning.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by turtle
First of all, I am not trying to draw any kind of line. I am quoting from an editorial comment from a magazine that I find very interesting.


And I claim that the the editorial comment itself is stupid, ignorant, and an argument by straw man.


Secondly, what is "stupid" about the idea that within any group there are degrees? If you truly deny that, that is simply ignorant. Or naive.

Degrees in the abstract may or may not be problematic. But degrees along this particular contiuum do not meaningfully exist. One might as well speculate about the "degree" to which any given skeptic is a carbon-based lifeform. Until we actually have evidence of variation along that axis.... it remains stupid.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Garrette

The quoted book seems to be the opposite in that the author has examined and analyzed general (purported) phenomena and found them in violation of well known tenets.


The book description says 'Rather than treating supernatural claims on a case-by-case basis, Milton Rothman uses the general principles supplied by physics to show why they are, in fact, impossible.
If he not treating it on a case by case basis, in my opinion this is still a 'priori'.


As an example, am I dismissing a priori an idea if I say that "If I hold a ball in my hand and let go it will rise instead of fall. This happens only in my own backyard?"

In my opinion even this should still be investigated, if the claim is sincerely made.


You've shown someone who has been described as holding this position. The author of the book review claims that the author of the book (Rothman) holds this position. Not at all the same thing.

Furthermore, he is is only described as showing things to be impossible "when subject to rigorous examination." Not exactly a priori according to the conventional meaning.


You are correct and I've not read the book. But whoever wrote that description seems ever so keen to say it's 'impossible' .. so I think I've still found a close minded skeptic at Prometheus Books ;)
;)

[hgc]

skeptic = American
sceptic = British

Same word, either side of the ocean.

If it's so important to you, turtle (or to the magazine writer you fondly quote), to redefine a word that currently means the exact opposite of what you want it to mean, namely credulity, then go ahead, and good luck to you. After the word sk/ceptic has been dashed upon the rocks of magical desires, those who think that physical evidence counts for something in determining reality will still not believe in every silly notion that pops up (by the way, none of them new or original). They'll have a another word to call themselves, and you will still be jealous of their achievements in human thought and want to appropriate that word too.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Open Mind:

In my opinion even this should still be investigated, if the claim is sincerely made

Ah, yes. Sincerity. That reliable arbiter.

You'll find scads of sincerity at the psychiatric hospitals in which I worked, and numerous fantastic claims.

You'll find truckloads of sincerity in every John Edward audience.

You'll find an impregnable wall of sincerity in a very close friend of mine who still thinks Uri Geller to be genuine.

Ah, Sincerity. How sorely we abuse ye.

[RamblingOnwards]

At least now I know where II gets this particular abuse of the english language from.

To quote my reply to II on this matter:


You are aware that sceptic and skeptic are in fact the same word, right? You don't think that color and colour mean two different things because they happen to be spelt differently? If you are irritated by the drift in the language but still want to use the word 'scepticism', you may want to consider these (well-accepted) refinements:

Philosophical skepticism: the belief that absolute truth or falsehood can not be determined through logic.

Scientific skepticism: the belief that truth or falsehood can only be verified by the scientific method

[jj]

Originally posted by Garrette
Ah, yes. Sincerity. That reliable arbiter.

You'll find scads of sincerity at the psychiatric hospitals in which I worked, and numerous fantastic claims.

You'll find truckloads of sincerity in every John Edward audience.

You'll find an impregnable wall of sincerity in a very close friend of mine who still thinks Uri Geller to be genuine.

Ah, Sincerity. How sorely we abuse ye.

Agreed.

I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build a new moon rocket and send it flying up there on behalf of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build
(snip)


On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

[Open Mind]

A good article touching nearly all the issues raised in this topic, is one by Marcello Truzzi.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs


On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese. [/B]

I wouldn't be too sure of that! :D

http://www.uncoveror.com/moon.htm

[Mojo]

Originally posted by turtle
dicitonaryis not a word either. I don't care how many times you use it.

[Aussie Thinker]

Turtle,

You raise an interesting point. Oddly enough it is probably one that causes a LOT of angst amongst sceptics.

The believer community and some of the Fortean types have this complete misconception that some sceptics (especially on this forum) are close minded unimaginative and completely unwilling to allow for the paranormal.

That is just ridiculous.

You seem to think our dis-belief is some sort of religious mantra. Dis-belief is just a NORMAL rational default position.

It is EXACTLY the position you would hold about, Aliens, PinkUnicorns, Easter Bunnies etc.. yet you “blame� us for holding it for other things that have NO more evidence than the above !

You mistake our.. “seen that all before, done that, show me something new, any evidence.. NO.. I thought so�, attitude with belligerence.

You know just how many times we have sucked it in smiled, been polite only to feel like idiots in the end when we get nothing concrete. Most of us have been shafted a bit too often and have become VERY jaded about paranormal claims. Too Jaded ??? Maybe so.. but we still wait with baited breath for that one tiny piece of tangible evidence !!!

BTW.. You know what I think is funny.. We want the paranormal to exist as much or even MORE than you do. We at least want to examine it, test it, confirm it.. most believers are content to just accept it.

EG.. I could argue I want your ability to foresee the future to exist way more than you do.. I show FAR more interest in it than YOU do. I can see its potential to save millions and change the world for the betterment of man.. I want to examine it test it harness it improve it.. to you it is just a mundane nothing special thing that requires nothing except mild acceptance !

[Mojo]

I prefer Spy vs. Spy.

You can't beat a good bit of John Zorn.

[jj]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I wouldn't be too sure of that! :D

http://www.uncoveror.com/moon.htm

Oh, did you have to do that? I see my insincere stalker jzs is again attempting to lamely defame me.

You have, of course, given him a proper treatment.

[jj]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Most of us have been shafted a bit too often and have become VERY jaded about paranormal claims. Too Jaded ??? Maybe so.. but we still wait with baited breath for that one tiny piece of tangible evidence !!!

Hear, hear, hear.

Time after time, this tweak, that magic cable, this other device that you stick to your wall, the rings you put around your CD's, the useless turntable clamp, the magic potiions you rub on the connectors, the solid-unobtanium cables, the rubberized ceramic you put on your speaker to align it with the vibrations of the universe.

Over and over and over again, things are promised. Over and over and over again, they are sheerest quackery, inadvertant self-deception, or sometimes deliberate fraud.

Yet, over and over, the demand to "be fair" to the next person selling the next rubberized rock.

And yet we have to "be fair" with NOT A SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE IN SIGHT.

JUST SHOW EVIDENCE!!!! EVIDENCE!

end of rant

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
I see my insincere stalker jzs is again attempting to lamely defame me.


No one, ever, has seriously considered the moon to be made of green cheese.

That is a fact. Forget the "defaming", which didn't happen. I merely stated the obvious, that your comparing things that people hold true or believe in to things they don't (green cheese) is flawed reasoning.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by turtle

"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02



It seems the distinction I have made between sKeptic and sceptic is catching on :)

[T'ai Chi]

I don't know if the difference between spellings is important (I just prefer the "k" spelling :) ), but there is an important difference between a skeptic and a scoffer.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Open Mind
If he not treating it on a case by case basis, in my opinion this is still a 'priori'.


That's nice for you.

Your opinion is wrong, however. That's not what a priori means.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs


No one, ever, has seriously considered the moon to be made of green cheese.

That is a fact. [/B]

You have knowledge of what all people have ever seriously considered? Wow! That's impressive!

I don't suppose any evidence in support of that claim will be forthcoming...will it?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Turtle,[/Q]

Hi Aussie,

[QUOTE]You raise an interesting point. Oddly enough it is probably one that causes a LOT of angst amongst sceptics.

The believer community and some of the Fortean types have this complete misconception that some sceptics (especially on this forum) are close minded unimaginative and completely unwilling to allow for the paranormal.

I don't think that. I think some are like that. Not all.

That is just ridiculous.

You seem to think our dis-belief is some sort of religious mantra. Dis-belief is just a NORMAL rational default position.

For skeptics it is, sure. (The dis belief as normal rational default position.) For some, it goes a bit beyond that, and is a sort of "religious mantra." Of course, some believers are like that too. The ones who believe in pleasantly robed, smiling Space Brothers, for example.

It is EXACTLY the position you would hold about, Aliens, PinkUnicorns, Easter Bunnies etc.. yet you “blame� us for holding it for other things that have NO more evidence than the above !

I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, in that regard.
I wouldn't put "aliens" in with the Easter Bunny or pink unicorns however.

You mistake our.. “seen that all before, done that, show me something new, any evidence.. NO.. I thought so�, attitude with belligerence.

Sometimes it is just that. Exactly that. Other times, no. I understand the frustration and jadedness, at times. I'm just not frusrated, or jaded. 'Course, I'm not a skeptic either, about most things paranormal, so that figures.

You know just how many times we have sucked it in smiled, been polite only to feel like idiots in the end when we get nothing concrete.

I don't understand why you'd feel "like an idiot" though.

Most of us have been shafted a bit too often and have become VERY jaded about paranormal claims. Too Jaded ??? Maybe so.. but we still wait with baited breath for that one tiny piece of tangible evidence !!!

Or feel "shafted." If someone tells me they've seen the Virgin Mary, I don't feel jaded, frustrated, shafted, or like an idiot. I pretty much believe them. In the sense they experienced something, and that it could even be the BVM (blessed virgin mary) and that it very likely could even be that great paranormal Trickster UT in the sky playing games. Hell, it could even be the Virgin Mary. Though personally, I doubt it. That's because of my own beliefs. Or, in this case, disbelief.

But it doesn't make me feel any of the things you describe.

BTW.. You know what I think is funny.. We want the paranormal to exist as much or even MORE than you do. We at least want to examine it, test it, confirm it.. most believers are content to just accept it.

I pretty much agree with that. The very interesting part to me is the difference in mindsets and approaches to the phenomena. Maybe personal experience has a lot to do with it.

EG.. I could argue I want your ability to foresee the future to exist way more than you do.. I show FAR more interest in it than YOU do. I can see its potential to save millions and change the world for the betterment of man.. I want to examine it test it harness it improve it.. to you it is just a mundane nothing special thing that requires nothing except mild acceptance !

Yep.

[turtle]

Originally posted by hgc
skeptic = American
sceptic = British

Same word, either side of the ocean.

If it's so important to you, turtle (or to the magazine writer you fondly quote), to redefine a word that currently means the exact opposite of what you want it to mean, namely credulity, then go ahead, and good luck to you. After the word sk/ceptic has been dashed upon the rocks of magical desires, those who think that physical evidence counts for something in determining reality will still not believe in every silly notion that pops up (by the way, none of them new or original). They'll have a another word to call themselves, and you will still be jealous of their achievements in human thought and want to appropriate that word too.

ROF @ ". . . and you will still be jealous of their achievments in human thought and want to appropriate that word too."

:D

[turtle]

Originally posted by Mojo
is not a word either. I don't care how many times you use it.

I'll paraphrase my best friend in this forum Dr. A, and say: "wow, you found a typo! And that proves...?"

Nothing, except I type too fast and I'm too lazy to check.

Big whooping dupe dee do!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
You have knowledge of what all people have ever seriously considered? Wow! That's impressive!

I don't suppose any evidence in support of that claim will be forthcoming...will it?

Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese, first.

Some skeptics often bring up the 'green cheese' thing, but what is the point if no one has ever seriously considered that?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by turtle
Care to say why you think "it's stupid?"
It's stupid for the same reason a five-year-old child saying, "Okay, I don't believe in Santa but I believe in Sanka with a k", is stupid. Sheez.
I'll ask you the same question: you deny then that there are types of skeptics, from mild mannered, lol, to the more "militant?"
Skeptical means skeptical no matter how much you want to play "let's make up words" so you can create a bogus scale of skepticism. Are you also going to create bogus "scheptic" and "sleptic" and "skeeptic" and "septic" words to slap on your stupidly silly scale of skepticism?

[BPScooter]

Originally posted by turtle
First of all, I am not trying to draw any kind of line. I am quoting from an editorial comment from a magazine that I find very interesting.

Secondly, what is "stupid" about the idea that within any group there are degrees? If you truly deny that, that is simply ignorant. Or naive.

So I guess there is a grey area between those that deny your assertion of grey areas, or there isn't. That's a fun Xeno paradox variation. I assert that there is a middle ground between the dualists, which sets me apart from dualism, which sets me in a new dualism between me and all them. Slippery and interesting.

[arthwollipot]

Isn't it amazing the way something as small as the spelling of a word can generate such heated feelings?

I've always thought that "skeptic" was the American English way of spelling the word, and "sceptic" was the English English way of spelling it. Same sort of distinction as "color" and "colour". Now I see that some people want to use that distinction for a political purpose - to separate "real" scotsmen... er, I mean skeptics... from those who say they are but really aren't.

My response: get over it. There is no "real" skeptic, just like there is no "real" atheist. Everyone is different, everyone has different experiences. Some people are more tolerant of those who come up with woowoo ideas, others are sick and tired of explaining all over again and simply bat it down.

There are those who claim that chiropractic (to take just one example) is completely useless for anything at all. My chiropractor fixed my back problems. But then again my chiropractor never claimed to be able to fix anything except back problems. So am I skeptical about chiropractic? That can't be answered in one word. Yes, I am skeptical about chiropractors that claim to be able to cure haemorrhoids. But No, I have experienced that it works in a limited range of applications. Haemorrhoids isn't in that range. Neither is eczema, schizophrenia or angina.

So am I skeptical or am I sceptical? Who cares? You're just playing with words. I choose not to play that game.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Simply because it's in the dicitonary doesn't mean it's legitimate.

Words have specific meanings, and need to be used correctly.

Who gets to decide what words are "legitimate" and how to use them "correctly"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yes closed minded sKepticism is alive and well ..... ;)

Hmmmmm......you don't get it, do you?

The laws of physics rule out the existence of paranormal phenomena. If paranormal phenomena exist, then science is all wrong. That's what is meant by "impossible".

But it isn't impossible a priori. All it takes to topple science, is one paranormal phenomenon to be real. Just one.

And we are still waiting for that one phenomenon to show itself...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

[Oleron]

Hypothetical:

If I was a "real" psychic I would be doing business with the JREF or CSICOP because, if I went to the Forteans to be tested, the public would point out that Forteans "went easy" on me.
I would want to be subjected to the most rigorous of tests, by the most skeptical of scientists. Only then could I convince the public of my abilities and rightly so.
What would be the point in 'soft' skepticism? It can prove nothing.

It is essential that scientists take a hard skeptical line when dealing with claims of the paranormal. Anything else is non-rigorous and open to challenge.

Does anyone seriously want CSICOP or the JREF to start setting the standards lower to enable people to pass? What good does that do either side of the debate?

[Jono]

Turtle, yes language do change over time of course.
What starts off as slang many times grow into the very descendant form of the language.
At least I've seen this in old swedish and english which do have words and frases incommon.

But of course language isn't unique from the point that its words changes meaning.
Symbols for example does that very thing, take the suncross for example.
Forever stained by the era of Hitler.
Other celtic and symbols of Norse mythology and the viking era have also left a bad taste in many a mouths, sadly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WhiteLion
Other celtic and symbols of Norse mythology and the viking era have also left a bad taste in many a mouths, sadly.

Really? Which ones?

[arthwollipot]

I quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

For example, I don't know if this occurs in other countries, but I am quite distressed in the common trend in Australia for people to use the word "gay" when they actually mean "stupid". As in, "this website is so gay. It is the gayest website I've ever seen."

They are not using it, as some have suggested to me, to mean excessive and flamboyant. They are using it to mean "stupid".

I'm all for the evolution of language, but please let's not evolve in a direction that is directly offensive to those who suffered from previous evolutionary drift.

[Jono]

CFLarsen, well you're scandinavian so I am sure you know some of the symbols that, been worn nazis and similar groups, have gotten a missunderstood,or altered meaning in the eyes of a lot of people.

Symbols such as, of course, the Swastika, which does appear in many elderly cultures.

The Suncross, The Sunwheel, ancient symbol, appears on viking runes and jewelry as well as in other ancient cultures.

The Triscelon, a three-legged version of the swastika, originating from ancient Greece.

VargHaken, an old pagan symbol originally used to protect against werewolfs. In modern times often used by the group WAR (VAM in swedish), White Arian Resistence.

The Celtic Cross, originating from Ireland and Scottland, often used today by nazigroups and racists of the White Power persuasion.

The Gryphon, old mythological symbol, frequently used Swedish nazirelated groups.

Thor's Hammer, the symbol of the Norse god Thor, God of Thunder.
Very often worn by swedish nazis and nazibands singing about the glory of the nordic arian race.
A famous painting from the 18th century had both the symbol of the hammer and the swastika, Hitler loved this painted and in his crusade is said to have been "artistically inspired" and influenced by it.
When Sweden, Great Britain, Germany where in a sort of "competition" of who were the most "viking like".

These above are a few of the symbols that before the stain of Hitlers era did carry a nobel and patriotic if not poetic meaning for many.

[Jono]

quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

Yes of course I can relate to your view there Arthwollipot.

And with the increasing rate of globalization words do change even faster, what was once a word meaning this is tomorrow simply a word meaning that.
Hard to keep up as I experience it.

Though when I write I strive to take as little heed as possible to contemporary trends in language and simply write what I have learned and experienced a word to mean.

Poetic freedom, a writer's sancturary indeed.

[CFLarsen]

WhiteLion,

I think it is fair to say that only the Swastika is today generally recognized as a nazi/racist symbol. If you showed the other symbols to people, I doubt many would say what you are saying.

Oh, well. Back to subject.

[Jono]

I think it is fair to say that only the Swastika is today generally recognized as a nazi/racist symbol. If you showed the other symbols to people, I doubt many would say what you are saying.

Well I've worn the celtic cross and Thor's Hammer, I've been asked if I were a nazi from inquisitive people from different cultures.

So I assessed that there, though perhaps not a vast one, is a somewhat general concern about other symbols other than the Swastika as well.

Still I agree that the Swastika is the most common and known of Nazi symbols.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Vortex
It's stupid for the same reason a five-year-old child saying, "Okay, I don't believe in Santa but I believe in Sanka with a k", is stupid. Sheez.

Skeptical means skeptical no matter how much you want to play "let's make up words" so you can create a bogus scale of skepticism. Are you also going to create bogus "scheptic" and "sleptic" and "skeeptic" and "septic" words to slap on your stupidly silly scale of skepticism?

Sorry, but many of those who call themselves "skeptics" exhibit an attitude which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the word as originally defined. They are cynics who are convinced that the world absolutely must operate on the principles which happen to be intellectually fashionable in modern western culture, and are impervious to all the evidence (and reasoning) which suggests otherwise. This is the very antithesis of a sceptic. Thus I think it is essential that we distinguish between these 2 positions. I for one shall continue to use the word sKeptic to refer to people with such an attitude.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw. And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
That's nice for you.

Your opinion is wrong, however. That's not what a priori means.

The point here is that "Open Mind" has demonstrated that Dr A was talking out of his you know what. Not that I think it needed to be demonstrated. It's the very definition of a sKeptic that they think most, if not all paranormal phenomena, as contradicting what science has shown to be the case regarding reality. Thus they are overwhelmingly predisposed to reject any evidence for the paranormal given that it cannot achieve a very clear effect each and every case on demand.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

Ummm . .no. Most people on here such as you fit the bill.

[Dr Adequate]

As I have pointed out before, repeatedly lying to me about my own opinions reveals you as

(1) Stupid
(2) Unpleasant
(3) A liar
(4) A bore

A bore, Ian, a bore. Can you not think of some new pathetic lies? I'm tired of the old ones.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
Isn't it amazing the way something as small as the spelling of a word can generate such heated feelings?

I've always thought that "skeptic" was the American English way of spelling the word, and "sceptic" was the English English way of spelling it. Same sort of distinction as "color" and "colour". Now I see that some people want to use that distinction for a political purpose - to separate "real" scotsmen... er, I mean skeptics... from those who say they are but really aren't.

My response: get over it. There is no "real" skeptic, just like there is no "real" atheist. Everyone is different, everyone has different experiences. Some people are more tolerant of those who come up with woowoo ideas, others are sick and tired of explaining all over again and simply bat it down.

There are those who claim that chiropractic (to take just one example) is completely useless for anything at all. My chiropractor fixed my back problems. But then again my chiropractor never claimed to be able to fix anything except back problems. So am I skeptical about chiropractic? That can't be answered in one word. Yes, I am skeptical about chiropractors that claim to be able to cure haemorrhoids. But No, I have experienced that it works in a limited range of applications. Haemorrhoids isn't in that range. Neither is eczema, schizophrenia or angina.

So am I skeptical or am I sceptical? Who cares? You're just playing with words. I choose not to play that game.

This is not a game. SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.

Now could you please answer this question?

How the hell can it be appropriate to describe them as sceptics?? Do you have any idea of what the word "sceptic" means??

It's as if people were to start using the word homosexual to actually mean heterosexual.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

For example, I don't know if this occurs in other countries, but I am quite distressed in the common trend in Australia for people to use the word "gay" when they actually mean "stupid". As in, "this website is so gay. It is the gayest website I've ever seen."



They must be referring to CFLarsen website :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They must be referring to CFLarsen website :D

If you think you can do better, go ahead.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is not a game. SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.Could you name one of these people and give a list of the principles he or she says that reality "must operate on", a priori.

Yes, it is a game. It's the same halfwitted game you're always playing. And losing.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles...
Well, don't you? We wouldn't be getting anywhere if the world didn't operate on "certain principles", would we?
Seriously though, people you call sKeptics probably exist, but probably not in numbers as great as you would like to think. People here do tend to ask for evidence.

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, let's find out. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53050)

Discovering what people think by asking them, rather than by fantasising about it... it's a crazy idea, but it might just work.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.

Wow! Ian, you're a SKeptic!

:dl:

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese, first.

Why? You know perfectly well the onus is on the claimant to show evidence for the claim, not for anyone else to disprove it.

But since I am nothing but accomodating, I once told my son when he was 4 years old that the moon was made of green cheese - he believed me for about a week until he actually looked it up.

Originally posted by jzs
Some skeptics often bring up the 'green cheese' thing, but what is the point if no one has ever seriously considered that?

Because it's a well known proverb. It illustrates a general point about credulity. Most people seem to have no problem with it and can see beyond the literal to the wider implication.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Could you name one of these people and give a list of the principles he or she says that reality "must operate on", a priori.

Yes, it is a game. It's the same halfwitted game you're always playing. And losing.

A prominent sceptic Susan Blackmore has stated:


There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion. . . . I have to say it-most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.

(Blackmore, S. J. (1994b). Women skeptics. In L. Coly & R. White (Eds.), Women and Parapsychology (234-236). New York: Parapsychology Foundation).

[Open Mind]

Your opinion is wrong, however. That's not what a priori means.

Latin never interested me much :) and a debate over the philosophical meaning of a-priori doesn’t alter the point at all. But I am willing to listen to you explain to me how Rothman is not using a-priori (by any of the slightly different definitions old or new) to dismiss paranormal claims. :)

By CF Larsen…….

Hmmmmm......you don't get it, do you?

The laws of physics rule out the existence of paranormal phenomena. If paranormal phenomena exist, then science is all wrong. That's what is meant by "impossible".

Claus mind, if you read my old posts, you will find I have said many times physics would probably require modification of physics theories if PSI is acknowledged to the weakest but proven degree. But you are wrong to say ‘then science is all wrong’ a few theoretical interpretations need modified ….. and these might open up other areas of exciting discovery that are not necessarily related or weak as most human psi ability.


But it isn't impossible a priori. All it takes to topple science, is one paranormal phenomenon to be real. Just one.

Not to topple science, just to topple super sKepticism ;) … And this ‘just one’ isn’t true either. . Many sKeptics will accept nothing but a constantly repetitive strong effect, they will miss weak effects or stronger erratic effects, over and over again dismissing it as nothing but something else.

by Oleron ……

It is essential that scientists take a hard skeptical line when dealing with claims of the paranormal. Anything else is non-rigorous and open to challenge.

Does anyone seriously want CSICOP or the JREF to start setting the standards lower to enable people to pass? What good does that do either side of the debate?


JREF is looking for strong effects in short trials. CSICOP on the other hand does take more interest in denying weak effects in parapsychology but CSICOP does not conduct long term trials either. Anomalous effects have still occurred under the strictest of controls …… however …...……to quote Hyman of CSICOP …..

’ “Even if one assembles all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done�

So as a last resort, when any other explanation cannot be made to fit, the fraud card is played. Any weak effect or stronger erratic effect can always be brought under doubt.

Close minded skeptics are potentially very gullible, not only have they stopped looking properly, they seldom question the quality of the information that is designed to debunk.

So super sKepticism, the dogma of the pseudo skeptics, just need to invent a few conspiracy like theories to imply fraud and this gets the sKeptic club even more passionately wound up in the bitter fight against what they assume (without proof) is conscious planned deception.

‘HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING’ – over 50 techniques, great advice for budding super sKKKKeptics!!! For free! :D ;)http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A prominent sceptic Susan Blackmore has stated:

Name these people, Ian. Don't merely repeat the claim.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

You don't like the example I gave? :D

How about .... the skeptic Professor Nicholas Humphrey and his book 'Soul Searching'

'
The general directions of the author's critique maybe indicated by a selection of his headings: "it is impossible a priori, hence it never happened" , "debunking as a substitute for scientific arguments", "censorship as part of the normal scientific process" ...... .

Book Review By Professor Brian Joesephson
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/humphrey.html#humphrey




"there are no ghosts, no poltergeists and no hauntings. They are all mistaken, imaginary, or false".

Mike Hutchinson (CSICOP)
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Claus mind, if you read my old posts, you will find I have said many times physics would probably require modification of physics theories if PSI is acknowledged to the weakest but proven degree. But you are wrong to say ‘then science is all wrong’ a few theoretical interpretations need modified ….. and these might open up other areas of exciting discovery that are not necessarily related or weak as most human psi ability.

You are dead-wrong about that.

If e.g. observations and measurements of gravity have in any way been influenced by telekinesis, then all theories of gravity go out the window. And don't forget that the scientific theories depend on each other: E.g., evolution depend on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Weak telekinesis? Not a problem, we got the most sensitive scales you can imagine. And if they can move matchboxes, why not something that's detectable?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Not to topple science, just to topple super sKepticism ;) … And this ‘just one’ isn’t true either. . Many sKeptics will accept nothing but a constantly repetitive strong effect, they will miss weak effects or stronger erratic effects, over and over again dismissing it as nothing but something else.

I don't care about this C-K game. Who are these people you are talking about? Names, please. I'm not going to discuss this, unless we can find out who these people are, and what they actually mean.

Originally posted by Open Mind
JREF is looking for strong effects in short trials.

Absolutely not. The effects can be as subtle as needed, all that is required is for it to be real.

Originally posted by Open Mind
CSICOP on the other hand does take more interest in denying weak effects in parapsychology but CSICOP does not conduct long term trials either. Anomalous effects have still occurred under the strictest of controls …… however …...……to quote Hyman of CSICOP …..

’ “Even if one assembles all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done�

So as a last resort, when any other explanation cannot be made to fit, the fraud card is played. Any weak effect or stronger erratic effect can always be brought under doubt.

Sure, it can - and it should. Should we accept a low standard, when it comes to parapsychology? On the contrary, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Close minded skeptics are potentially very gullible, not only have they stopped looking properly, they seldom question the quality of the information that is designed to debunk.

Who are these people? Names, please.

Originally posted by Open Mind
So super sKepticism, the dogma of the pseudo skeptics, just need to invent a few conspiracy like theories to imply fraud and this gets the sKeptic club even more passionately wound up in the bitter fight against what they assume (without proof) is conscious planned deception.

‘HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING’ – over 50 techniques, great advice for budding super sKKKKeptics!!! For free! :D ;)http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

Yeah, yeah. Show us some evidence of a paranormal phenomenon instead.

[hgc]

Originally posted by turtle
ROF @ ". . . and you will still be jealous of their achievments in human thought and want to appropriate that word too."

:D I aim to be informative and entertaining. I'm glad you take it in the spirit in which it's offered.

Now, how about dropping this silliness about different ways to spell the same word and how some non-believers have an aggressive attitude? What really matters here? I think it's the respect for and teaching a way of looking at things that relies more on evidential reality than on wishful thinking.

[Dr Adequate]

So, no-one is able to give an example of anyone in the world who believes that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible".

I'm not surprised.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg

[turtle]

Originally posted by hgc
I aim to be informative and entertaining. I'm glad you take it in the spirit in which it's offered.

Now, how about dropping this silliness about different ways to spell the same word and how some non-believers have an aggressive attitude? What really matters here? I think it's the respect for and teaching a way of looking at things that relies more on evidential reality than on wishful thinking.

How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it?

I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hmmmmm......you don't get it, do you?

The laws of physics rule out the existence of paranormal phenomena. If paranormal phenomena exist, then science is all wrong. That's what is meant by "impossible".

But it isn't impossible a priori. All it takes to topple science, is one paranormal phenomenon to be real. Just one.

And we are still waiting for that one phenomenon to show itself...

Fantastic point.

The implied part of the statements made regarding all of those concepts is - "If Science as we know it is correct than...'

If you start with the concept that the last several thousand years of scientific achievement are wrong then you can start to validate these paranormal concepts, but first you have to prove the science is wrong.

I don't think that I qualify as stupid, but I am not going to start trying to disprove Newton, Einstein, etc, Anyone else who wants to give it a go, knock yourself out. I will await with baited breath your layman descriptions of the work you accomplish.

Personally, I find it the height of arrogance for people to claim that they are smarter than the most brilliant minds in human history. If you truly are, go prove it. Get the training, take the classes and go prove you are "all that and a bag of chips" when it comes to brains...

[hgc]

Originally posted by turtle
How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it?Thanks, but I could have figured that out all by myself. I like posting in this thread. It's almost as much fun as a chocolate eclair.I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means. Would indeed be odd, if that's what I said. Read again. It says, "... some non-believers have an aggressive attitude ..." I find that copy & paste helps with getting quotes correct.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by turtle
How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it? Did I hear a stupid whining sound? I did. Obviously hgc does like posting on this thread, or he wouldn't do it. Even turtle isn't stupid enough to be unaware of this. But translated from whine language into English, it comes out as: "If you disagree with what I say, you shouldn't post" which is also utterly stupid, but in a different way.I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means. No, turtle, you don't even know what he means. Nor, it seems, do you even know what he wrote. Apparently you wanted to respond to his post, but were too lazy to try to overcome your stupidity and find out what he actually said.

Edited to add... there's a funny echo in here.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Did I hear a stupid whining sound? I did.

Yes, I did too. Came from hgc who made a comment about it, and from you.

Me, I made a comment -- which was not rude by the way,. something you're incapable of not doing -- to someone's post. Big deal, I made a mistake in reading what he said regarding his second comment. You'll live, in spite of this dire little drama, I'm sure. So relax.

I also see you just can't help yourself. Being rude and combative is obviously a very deep seated disorder with you.

Obviously hgc does like posting on this thread, or he wouldn't do it.

shrug. Seemed he didn't, but if, as he says, he does fine. I don't care either way.

Even turtle isn't stupid enough to be unaware of this. But translated from whine language into English, it comes out as: "If you disagree with what I say, you shouldn't post" which is also utterly stupid, but in a different way. No, turtle, you don't even know what he means.

Look, when someone complains about a thread, I figure they can either leave, or post things other than whining, to try to turn the thread to where they'd like to see it go. It isn't any big deal, but of course, you seem to think it is. In fact, you seem to think anything I post is a big enough deal for you to be rude and insulting.

Nor, it seems, do you even know what he wrote. Apparently you wanted to respond to his post, but were too lazy to try to overcome your stupidity and find out what he actually said.

The only thing I misunderstood was his 'believer aggressive' post, which wasn't what he said. That's between me and him, not you, "self appointed guru of all that is wrong in this forum." You're not even a moderator, so buzz off.

By the way, as I keep telling you, take responsibility for your behavior, find something more productive to do, and stop proving what many of us "believers" think about you types: that you're ill mannered, rude, insutling creeps.


Edited to add... there's a funny echo in here.

There's also a sense of deja vu: you know, where you'be posted insulting rude posts for no other reason than to be an idiot?

By the way, responding to someone is not "whining" and you really need to get over yourself in that regard.

In fact, I would say you're the one is who "whining" -- posting rude comments at me or whoever it is you've decided to put on your list -- at the drop of a hat.

[LovleAnjel]

I am a working scientist, and the world does indeed operate on specific principles. Principles are theories which have been supported by confirming evidence, and lack disconfirming evidence, and are the closest things to facts that we have. We start from the assumption that these principles are correct. If a phenomenon were to directly contradict a principle, I would pretty much laugh it off. Examples and explanations of principles in physics can be found at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
For biology:
http://clab.cecil.cc.md.us/faculty/biology1/principles.htm
In geology, we have the principles of superposition, original horizontality, cross-cutting relations, and a number of others you would learn in any introductory course.

The development of theory of evolution did not "depend" on any of the laws of thermodynamics. It was arrived at and supported over time without any physicists' help. It does, however, have to follow their laws. If evolution contradicted any physical law, it would be roundly dismissed. People have used this to try and dispute evolution (which, as a theory, is only a step down from a principle in the scientific hierarchy).

I am very confused by what is meant by "weak" and "erratic" effects. The weak and erratic effects I encounter in my work are the result of statistical noise, and of no consequence. They are never considered significant, and positing them as such gets one's hypothesis and paper rejected. It also gets one critiqued by undergrads in seminars learning how to read and understand scientific literature. An effect is either statistically significant, or it isn't. Five hundred papers with statistically insignificant ("weak") results are worth nothing compared to a single paper with a statistically significant result. And altering your p-value threshold or massaging your data to achieve significance is equally worthless.

I think there are some very "close-minded" people on both sides of these debates. Saying that there is a spectrum of personalities inhabiting the sceptical movement doesn't weaken the meaning of the word. And I dislike when people (anyone!) try and invent language to serve a political purpose.

"Gay" is slang for stupid in America as well. "Liberace gay" means really stupid. These words are mostly offensive when used by straights, just like white boys calling their friends "niggaz" is also offensive. They're essentially cultural in-jokes.

[turtle]

Originally posted by hgc
Thanks, but I could have figured that out all by myself. I like posting in this thread. It's almost as much fun as a chocolate eclair.Would indeed be odd, if that's what I said. Read again. It says, "... some non-believers have an aggressive attitude ..." I find that copy & paste helps with getting quotes correct.

Nothing is as fun as a chocolate eclair! (Well, almost nothing. . .)

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
Nothing is as fun as a chocolate eclair! (Well, almost nothing. . .)

You must know my teenager! She would agree wholeheartedly.

You wouldn't know where they make a good one in the Seattle area, would you?

But, turtle, there is a point here, and the point is that people who come up with extraordinary claims must have some evidence to support them. People come up with extraordinary claims all the time, and most often they crash and burn when any evidence is examined. Not always, no, but nearly always.

Life is too short to investigate the 999th claim to the same extraordinary effect UNLESS THERE IS SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THIS TIME, and unless that evidence appears repeatable. Therein lies the problem, usually.

[jj]

Originally posted by LovleAnjel
The development of theory of evolution did not "depend" on any of the laws of thermodynamics. It was arrived at and supported over time without any physicists' help. It does, however, have to follow their laws. If evolution contradicted any physical law, it would be roundly dismissed.


Hold on thar a minute, slick!

No, if evolution contradicted some physical law, and still has as much evidence for it as there is (which is, roughly speaking, more evidence than there is for anything else in existance, give or take), then what we would see is not dismissal, but rather a very careful, serious examination of WHAT was going on, WHY it was going on, and which "law" was wrong, and how said law would be extended.

The laws have to respond to reality, no matter how upsetting. :)

Continental drift is a good example here, it was thought to contradict the whole idea of how the earth was pretty static, etc, and was rejected, BUT when new evidence, in particular the seafloor spreading in the Atlantic, came into existance, the old "laws" of geology are what bit the dust, and had to be reunderstood as being part of plate tectonics and an active mantle/core, etc.


People have used this to try and dispute evolution (which, as a theory, is only a step down from a principle in the scientific hierarchy).

Disputing evolution via thermodynamics is a foolish thing, because the earth isn't a closed system. In fact, I think most people who have examined the issue and who still raise the issue are raising it disingeniously, because even the simplest, most trivial study of thermo will point out the fallacy involved in suggesting that the solar system, even, is a closed system.

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj
You must know my teenager! She would agree wholeheartedly.

You wouldn't know where they make a good one in the Seattle area, would you?

But, turtle, there is a point here, and the point is that people who come up with extraordinary claims must have some evidence to support them. People come up with extraordinary claims all the time, and most often they crash and burn when any evidence is examined. Not always, no, but nearly always.

Life is too short to investigate the 999th claim to the same extraordinary effect UNLESS THERE IS SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THIS TIME, and unless that evidence appears repeatable. Therein lies the problem, usually.

Not in Seattle, haven't been up there for some time. In Eugene there's a fantastic bakery though!

Re: evidence,yes, I do understand. But as I posted to Aussie T., -- sigh. Well, I'm not a skeptic, or, rather, don't have that innate 'skeptic gene" so I'm coming from a different place. . .

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jj
C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

I know. I am just trying to hold Justin to his claim.

........OK, I'm stupid.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by LovleAnjel

I am very confused by what is meant by "weak" and "erratic" effects. The weak and erratic effects I encounter in my work are the result of statistical noise, and of no consequence. They are never considered significant, and positing them as such gets one's hypothesis and paper rejected. It also gets one critiqued by undergrads in seminars learning how to read and understand scientific literature. An effect is either statistically significant, or it isn't. Five hundred papers with statistically insignificant ("weak") results are worth nothing compared to a single paper with a statistically significant result. And altering your p-value threshold or massaging your data to achieve significance is equally worthless.


I submit either that your work as a geologist is atypical of science as a whole, or more likely that you aren't accurately describing what you do. The whole point of the statistical analysis -- the p values you describe -- are to mine "strong" effects from the actual "weak" and "erratic" effects that are actually observed.

A classic example of such an experiment would be Lord Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus, by firing alpha particles at a sheet of gold foil. As every schoolchild knows (meaning "Il'm not bothering to track down the original reference") most of the particles passed through unmolested, while "a few" were deflected, sometimes substantially. The chance of any given particle being deflected was low -- the deflection effect was "weak." Furthermore, there was no way of predicting which particles would be deflected -- the effect was also "erratic." But by gathering enough data, he showed that this effect was not simply experimental error or noise.

On a more mundane level, casinos make their money off of the long-term cumulative effect of a number of weak biases in the games that they play. In European roulette, for example, the casino keeps "on average" 1/37 of the money from each play, and of course never keeps exactly that much. The amount that is kept is "erratic" -- the house more or less keeps everything, but only when the number zero comes up.

Many of the psi apologists argue for the same effect. I might, for example, be able to predict the flip of a "fair" coin with 51% accuracy. This is a very weak effect, but in the long run would be enough to let me win substantial sums.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by turtle
Re: evidence,yes, I do understand. But as I posted to Aussie T., -- sigh. Well, I'm not a skeptic, or, rather, don't have that innate 'skeptic gene" so I'm coming from a different place. . .
How terribly convenient to be coming from a mystical land where no evidence is required for belief.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Many of the psi apologists argue for the same effect. I might, for example, be able to predict the flip of a "fair" coin with 51% accuracy. This is a very weak effect, but in the long run would be enough to let me win substantial sums.

So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?

We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all.

With time, proponents of paranormal phenomena look more and more silly. And desperate.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
How terribly convenient to be coming from a mystical land where no evidence is required for belief.

I said nothing of the kind. Did you read my post to Aussie? I suggest you do so, then you may comment.

I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.

Yes, yes, I understand you don't consider that valid, that's not what this is about. I am merely answering your comment -- and assumption.

I suggest you get off that high horse of yours that presumes I live in some la la land where only idiots roam the rainbow colored hills. Thank you.

I did say that I don't have that innate "skeptic gene" (and before any of you more literal nit picky types get hot under the collar, no, I don't mean it literally) and my approach to such things -- and my responses to them -- are different. For the most part. I am skeptical of many things, paranormal, political, and more. I am skeptical when it comes to the 'theory' of vats of human body parts being stirred by Reptilian Overlords in underground cities. Or that, as I said to Aussie, when someone sees the BVM or Jesus it's not really the BVM or Jesus they are seeing. (though it could be, I suppose. We don't know for certain now, do we?) But I don't believe in those things, and based on the evidence -- yes, evidence -- (which does not equate proof) I believe it's something else altogether. I don't believe a word Bush says, but that' another forum altogether.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by turtle
I said nothing of the kind. Did you read my post to Aussie? I suggest you do so, then you may comment.
I neither require nor request your permission to comment. Talk about high horses.

I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.

Yes, yes, I understand you don't consider that valid, that's not what this is about. I am merely answering your comment -- and assumption.
And why should anyone consider your evidence valid? What makes you so special that you get to operate under different rules?

I suggest you get off that high horse of yours that presumes I live in some la la land where only idiots roam the rainbow colored hills. Thank you.
My, we're sensitive, aren't we? I do not presume you live in a land where only idiots roam. I'm certain there are many morons in those parts, as well.

I did say that I don't have that innate "skeptic gene" (and before any of you more literal nit picky types get hot under the collar, no, I don't mean it literally) and my approach to such things -- and my responses to them -- are different. For the most part. I am skeptical of many things, paranormal, political, and more. I am skeptical when it comes to the 'theory' of vats of human body parts being stirred by Reptilian Overlords in underground cities. Or that, as I said to Aussie, when someone sees the BVM or Jesus it's not really the BVM or Jesus they are seeing. (though it could be, I suppose. We don't know for certain now, do we?) But I don't believe in those things, and based on the evidence -- yes, evidence -- (which does not equate proof) I believe it's something else altogether. I don't believe a word Bush says, but that' another forum altogether.
Got that all out of your system? Good, now thicken up your skin, state your standards for evidence, and tell us why anyone should respect them.

[Blondin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much sums up your problem - you're a poor judge of what constitutes evidence.

Unintentional bias, fallibility of senses, incorrect interpretation, memory failure... there are dozens of reasons why personal experience is NOT evidence.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?


Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.

Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.

Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.

Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all

This is exactly what has happened time after time when dealing with audio enthusiasts(AE) vs. jj (JJ).

---

(AE and JJ do ABX test or something DBT) First, it's something "obvious". Poof, they fail a DBT ABX test for something they said was "glaringly obvious".

(AE) Then, of course, "ABX tests don't work".
(JJ) Ok, after that's churned out and dismissed as the crock it is, we see:

(AE)But I didn't have enough training to detect such small differences!

(JJ)Ok, which was it, small or glaringly obvious?

(AE)Why, why, you close-minded idiot philistine you! You're just part of the ABX mafia coming to try to shut down all advances in the science of audio, why you're a quack trying to push the status quo, you fake (on and on and on), you're trying to monopolize all of the audio discussion on the internet you cheapskate you, you fraud quack moronic idiot criminal ethical relitivist (rule 8) you, bow wow woof woof

------

Then when that's over, they spend the rest of their time sniping at people much like jzs does, trying to take things out of context, misrepresent what others say in an attempt to defame them, and in general be incivil, insulting pains in the butt, pretending to be "skeptics" or "sceptics" (same word, same meaning) about science, but of course with an unwillingness to espouse their own theories or put them up for general examination. The more intellectually honest of them become like Interesting Ian, and pretty much admit that what they have is a faith. Still, like Ian or Hammy-dearest, they hang around to insult others from time to time, I think just for form's sake.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I neither require nor request your permission to comment. Talk about high horses.

]If you're going to make comments about living in "mystical lands" then you should have an idea of what you're on about.

And why should anyone consider your evidence valid? What makes you so special that you get to operate under different rules?

LOL, you can consider it any way you like. As shall I.

My, we're sensitive, aren't we? I do not presume you live in a land where only idiots roam. I'm certain there are many morons in those parts, as well.

Your little jabs have not escaped me. When you make comments like "living in a mystical land" and sneering that such is "convenient" for me, I will comment accordingly. I knew I should have modified my comment because of the literal response some would make. I gave you more credit than though. I will not make that mistake again.


Got that all out of your system?

Yes. Did you? I assume you did. Or else you wouldn't have posted.

Good, now thicken up your skin,...

My skin is fine thank you. I will not, however, allow posts that are in error and directed at me to go unanswered

state your standards for evidence, ...

I need not, although, I have already done so. Again, I direct you to read my posts.

and tell us why anyone should respect them.

Oh, let's see, because it's the civil thing to do, because respecting and agreeing are not the same thing, because it's simply the way it is. I've explained myself, I shall not do so again. Unlike some around here, I try not to engage in 'repeat theater." So I suggest you move on, nothing more to see here.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Blondin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much sums up your problem - you're a poor judge of what constitutes evidence.

Unintentional bias, fallibility of senses, incorrect interpretation, memory failure... there are dozens of reasons why personal experience is NOT evidence.
:D Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by turtle
:D Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

And yet it's skeptics who are hardheaded... :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.


Boy, in particle physics you can say that a few times, indeed. :)

It's also true in signal detection theory. When you know the limited forms a highly redundant signal can take, you can extract it (of course, slowly and with much calculation) out of remarkably noisy, bad conditions. How do you think they got data from voyager, after all?

Detecting small effects inside of large, noisy ones is a key method of refinement in many parts of science.


Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.


Although people don't quote both type 1 and type 2 error often enough, it is possible (of course I know you know this!) to state for any given test the actual level of non-random behavior that could have been detected in a test.

For some of the large aggregates, that would set any non-random part very close to exactly random indeed.

Now, this does lead to another problem, that of when people selectively choose what tests to aggregate. It's trivial, by picking a few tests that happen, by sheer probability, to be on one side of random, and by then summing them, to show a "meaningful" result, but that's nothing but an artifact of data selection.

For instance, in a pure binomial, one person responding with 5 of 8 will happen a bit more than 20% of the time. In short, it's meaningless.

But if we SELECT 8 of those from a population of 100 tests, which will have most likely many more than 8 of, and add them together, we see 40/64, which more or less meets a 1 sided 5% criterion. What does it mean? Nothing except that we selected our data.


Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.


As well as lead to enormous advances in understanding of the physical universe, to say the least. But we don't see it, again and again, we see nothing.


Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

And if there was, I'd have heard about it by now, too, and you know what? I haven't. Furthermore, I know a lot of people who would bounce with excitement if something showed up, but all they look is busy doing other work, because nothing has shown up, over and over and over again.

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
:D Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

Blondin is assuming no more than what science shows about personal testamony and human perception.

Do you have any proof that what science shows is wrong? Evidence, please, hard evidence.

[turtle]

Originally posted by voodoochile
And yet it's skeptics who are hardheaded... :rolleyes:

Did I say skeptics were hardheaded?

Hmm, because some of you cannot understand what I'm posting - for example, I said evidence is not proof, I said I've done years of study on various things, I said I am skeptical of some things -- I'm 'hardheaded?" Qualifier: I know that you did not say literally I was hardheaded, however, it is implied in your statement. Hopefully that will stop any posts about nitpicking over meaning and who said what really....:rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by turtle
]If you're going to make comments about living in "mystical lands" then you should have an idea of what you're on about.

I've an idea what I'm on about; I've no idea what you're on.

Your little jabs have not escaped me.
Good. Perhaps you're slightly less clueless than you appear.


My skin is fine thank you. I will not, however, allow posts that are in error and directed at me to go unanswered
Demonstrate the error, then. Whining about it helps nothing.

I need not, although, I have already done so. Again, I direct you to read my posts.
I've done so already. I am not quite enough the masochist to subject myself to that again.

Oh, let's see, because it's the civil thing to do,
I've no use for your notions of civility. Your ideas about evidence are demonstrably wrong. I respect difference of opinion out of civility. I do not respect wrong-headedness for any reason.

Unless you can demonstrate that your standards of evidence even approach usefulness, much less validity, I shall continue to disrespect them.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?

We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all.

With time, proponents of paranormal phenomena look more and more silly. And desperate.

Hmm... well, for the record, I don't believe in psychic powers, weak or otherwise. However, I think I should point out that if there really are weak powers, your comment may not be valid.

We all know that the odds favor the house, which is how they make their money. But - would the casinos even notice someone who broke even as opposed to someone who wins consistently and walks out with a profit? I think they're focused on the "winners" - and probably only the consistent ones, at that.

Someone who "breaks even" is beating the odds on a regular basis, though. If the inconsistency of "weak powers" gave someone only slightly better odds , a casino-going "weak" psychic might only lose a very little... or perhaps break even.

Ergo, no big winners - just someone who's not a loser.

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj
Blondin is assuming no more than what science shows about personal testamony and human perception.

Do you have any proof that what science shows is wrong? Evidence, please, hard evidence.

Isn't that proving a negative? I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal. I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing. I was there, you weren't. I can't prove it, sure, but you cannot disprove I didn't see a ghost. Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

[turtle]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I've an idea what I'm on about; I've no idea what you're on.

Cute. Real funny. You should give Comedy Central a call.

Good. Perhaps you're slightly less clueless than you appear.

Nice.


Demonstrate the error, then. Whining about it helps nothing.

Ah, the old 'whining' standby. That don't work on me dude! As I said, read my posts. Don't "whine" at me about what you find wrong, irksome, annoying, or whatever it is you're finding.


I've done so already. I am not quite enough the masochist to subject myself to that again.
Then why are you "whining" and continuing to blather on to me about it? Move on for crying out loud, and quit "whining" about it. :rolleyes:


I've no use for your notions of civility.

LOL, that seems quite obvious.

Your ideas about evidence are demonstrably wrong.

yeah, okay.

I respect difference of opinion out of civility. I do not respect wrong-headedness for any reason.

Ah. How "conveinent" for you.

Unless you can demonstrate that your standards of evidence even approach usefulness, much less validity, I shall continue to disrespect them.

You mean you'll continue to be a rude thug.
I've demonstrated just fine, and it's quite usefull, I have no problem with it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by turtle
You mean you'll continue to be a rude thug.
I've demonstrated just fine, and it's quite usefull, I have no problem with it.
You're really quite fun. [poke]

So, you cannot demonstrate how I was in error, and you can not demonstrate the efficacy of your standards for evidence. This is correct?

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
Isn't that proving a negative?


Not at all.


I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal.


First, science is ALWAYS provisional.

Second, you certainly CAN show that some part of science is wrong, ALL you have to do is provide hard evidence that contradicts part of science.

That is all, repeat ALL you have to do. There is no argument to enumeration, exclusion, etc, going on here. All you have to do is show something that contradicts science and have HARD EVIDENCE.


I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing.


An absurd statement.

I will accept, 100%, that you believe that you have seen ghosts.

However, having studied human perception for going on 30 years or so, I am quite comfortable in saying that what you sincerely believe you saw is no evidence at all.

Hard evidence means that you have to be able to show others ghosts, in a form that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible.

In other words, you have to provide good evidence that it's a ghost, not something else, that there was anything happening, and you have to be able to repeat this, and OTHERS have to be able to repeat this with or without you, as well.


Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

Hard evidence can be tested, etc. The theory behind the evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable, etc.

"I saw a ghost" is not even evidence, let alone hard evidence. If I presume that you are exactly, precisely sincere, and that furthermore you are a sane, competent adult human being, that STILL is not evidence. If it's something you can repeat at will with others, do so, and start working on how to verify this under controlled, verifiable conditions.

Anecdotes present a problem when they can not be confirmed. For instance, a known provacateur accused me of lying when I said that my mom had a major argument with a person "assisting" her in filling out her absentee ballot. The provacteur claimed this was not evidence. The provacateur did not account for the fact that there were other witnesses, and that many people's perceptions could be brought to bear on my statement. Still, this is not hard evidence, even though many people saw, etc, the event. A recording would have been much better evidence. On the other hand, we can corroborate this with the experiences of others, who can relate the same tale. So there is still some level of verification. So this is something for which there is some evidence, even though the provacateur chose not to examine the evidence and, rather, persisted in making defamatory accusations. There are many, rather than one, people who share the experience, and both they and eyewitnesses can tell tales that share the features under discussion. Now, of course, there is nothing extraordinary about this claim, either, it involves simple, well-known human behaviors.

When we get to extraordinary claims, the leve of evidence cited above would simply be cause to investigate further.

On the other hand, "I saw a ghost once" is not verifiable, it is not repeatable, etc. It is not evidence at all. I will presume that you are saying exactly what you believe, this is not a question of veracity. I will furthermore not assume that you are hallucinating or something like that. I will simply point out that human perception is hideously, terribly fallable, and that single instances that can not be reproduced have no value in science. In my own area, I have often created "illusions" of whole sound, in fact, MP3 (something I'm one of the lead researchers and main inventors of) works by discarding what we can't hear from a signal (when it works right, that is). You can easily argue that the result is an "illusion" of the whole, even though it's generally quite convincing and so on. Just something like that, where 90% of the information in the signal is removed outright, shows how tricky human perception is.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Personally, I find it the height of arrogance for people to claim that they are smarter than the most brilliant minds in human history. If you truly are, go prove it. Get the training, take the classes and go prove you are "all that and a bag of chips" when it comes to brains...

I disagree - it doesn't require phenomenal intelligence to disprove science; we make clearer measurements and discover new evidence all the time. To disprove science all you need is ...uh... disproof.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
You're really quite fun. [poke]

Thanks. So are you. (and I do hope you are not poking me, young man!)

So, you cannot demonstrate how I was in error, and you can not demonstrate the efficacy of your standards for evidence. This is correct?

That is incorrect.

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj [/B]



However, having studied human perception for going on 30 years or so, I am quite comfortable in saying that what you sincerely believe you saw is no evidence at all.

However, having studied the phenomena of ghosts/hauntings for more than 30 years, I am quite comfortable in saying that what is often perceived as "ghosts" are, indeed, ghosts, and there is no lack of evidence.

Hard evidence means that you have to be able to show others ghosts,

Done.

in a form that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible.

Done. Of course, ghosts being what they are (der, ghosts) you can't expect them to pop up simply because you want them to. I do hope your suggestion isn't that they appear inside a lab, lol.



In other words, you have to provide good evidence that it's a ghost, not something else, that there was anything happening, and you have to be able to repeat this, and OTHERS have to be able to repeat this with or without you, as well.

Done.


Hard evidence can be tested, etc. The theory behind the evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable, etc.

"I saw a ghost" is not even evidence, let alone hard evidence.

It's evidence.

If I presume that you are exactly, precisely sincere, and that furthermore you are a sane, competent adult human being, that STILL is not evidence.

Not evidence based on my personality, agreed. Evidence based on experience of said ghost, yes.

If it's something you can repeat at will with others, do so, and start working on how to verify this under controlled, verifiable conditions.

You cannot "repeat at will" many things, including ghosts. If only it were so. Then it'd be much neater wouldn't it?

Anecdotes present a problem when they can not be confirmed. For instance, a known provacateur accused me of lying when I said that my mom had a major argument with a person "assisting" her in filling out her absentee ballot. The provacteur claimed this was not evidence. The provacateur did not account for the fact that there were other witnesses, and that many people's perceptions could be brought to bear on my statement. Still, this is not hard evidence, even though many people saw, etc, the event. A recording would have been much better evidence. On the other hand, we can corroborate this with the experiences of others, who can relate the same tale. So there is still some level of verification. So this is something for which there is some evidence, even though the provacateur chose not to examine the evidence and, rather, persisted in making defamatory accusations. There are many, rather than one, people who share the experience, and both they and eyewitnesses can tell tales that share the features under discussion. Now, of course, there is nothing extraordinary about this claim, either, it involves simple, well-known human behaviors.

When we get to extraordinary claims, the leve of evidence cited above would simply be cause to investigate further.

On the other hand, "I saw a ghost once" is not verifiable, it is not repeatable, etc. It is not evidence at all.

Actually, I've seen ghosts more than once, but anyway.

It's evidence.

I will presume that you are saying exactly what you believe, this is not a question of veracity. I will furthermore not assume that you are hallucinating or something like that. I will simply point out that human perception is hideously, terribly fallable, and that single instances that can not be reproduced have no value in science. In my own area, I have often created "illusions" of whole sound, in fact, MP3 (something I'm one of the lead researchers and main inventors of) works by discarding what we can't hear from a signal (when it works right, that is). You can easily argue that the result is an "illusion" of the whole, even though it's generally quite convincing and so on. Just something like that, where 90% of the information in the signal is removed outright, shows how tricky human perception is.

I've thought I've seen things too that on second look realized it was just an illusion, etc. There is that. Certainly. And then, there are ghosts.

you know, if it walks like a duck, etc.

I suppose we need to define ghost, or spirit. Thinking you saw a weird shadow thingy that could be a ghost and then you realize it's just a weird shadow thingy because of the bad lighting in the room or whatever, and seeing a ghost, are two different things. When you say "ghost" just what do you mean?

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I disagree - it doesn't require phenomenal intelligence to disprove science; we make clearer measurements and discover new evidence all the time. To disprove science all you need is ...uh... disproof.

Right, but that doesn't include random annecdotal evidence from people who already believe in a phenommenon. Sorry if I was unclear. That is why I said that people who honestly think they can set known science on its ear should go get the training and do the work to prove it so.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by turtle
...Done.

Done. Of course, ghosts being what they are (der, ghosts) you can't expect them to pop up simply because you want them to. I do hope your suggestion isn't that they appear inside a lab, lol.

Done...

First of all , JJ, good post.

Now, turtle, I may have missed this while lurking, but could you repeat how or where I can see a ghost, and be certain I've seen a ghost, preferably in the presence of several people?
It doesn't have to be in a lab, just in a place where one is allowed to completely inspect the premises. Hence the controlled circumstances.
One needs to be able to see them often enough to be able to take all kinds of measuring equipment and conduct experiments. Other people should be able to obtain similar results doing similar experiments.
If there's any indication that something unknown to physics is going on, then this would constitute evidence. Your saying so, or even firmly believing so wouldn't.

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle


However, having studied the phenomena of ghosts/hauntings for more than 30 years, I am quite comfortable in saying that what is often perceived as "ghosts" are, indeed, ghosts, and there is no lack of evidence.


Debate does not consist of replacing one set of words in a statement with another.

My comment about perception is an expert perception, based on a career that has studied human perception for give or take 30 years, and for which I have recieved awards, etc, bow wow woof woof from several scientific organizations, various companies, and a couple of other organizations, all with a scientific basis.

Since you are now making a statement that appears to be "expert" can you please cite me the SCIENTIFIC basis for your studies, including the SCIENTIFIC evidence. Personal testamonials will not suffice.

I won't get into your being a 'ghost expert', I'm quite aware of what science has discussed and concluded on the subject, and I am not aware, presently, of a single 'ghost expert' who would qualify, scientifically, to authoritively make the statement that you make above. In the spirit of inquiry, you may be on to something new, and if you want, I can tell you how to proceed, and how to attempt to move your work on to more solid ground, of course, if you can provide the evidence necessary.

Bear in mind that what I do for a living, perceptual coding of audio signals, was once publically denounced in an AES meeting as sheer quackery by a noted authority. It's not impossible to change people's conclusions IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE. As it were, I had all the evidence anyone needed. Do you?

The evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, observable, verifiable, and repeatable.

Your testamony, alone, does not fly. Your belief and insistance, however sincere, do not make a ghost scientific. You need to make the subject testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable, at the very least. Externally observable would be a good thing, too, i.e. not just something from human perceptions.

What's more, to gather such evidence, you must be able to exclude mudane causes.

And more, but I'll settle for those for starters. Can you provide this evidence?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Why? You know perfectly well the onus is on the claimant to show evidence for the claim, not for anyone else to [b]disprove it.

Right, and since the talked about people believing the moon was made of green cheese first...

[quote]
But since I am nothing but accomodating, I once told my son when he was 4 years old that the moon was made of green cheese - he believed me for about a week until he actually looked it up.


An adult, thanks. And something we can verify, not an anedcote "I once told ...".


Because it's a well known proverb.


So? If a person has never seriosuly held such a thing to be true, using it to "illustrate" some point illustrates nothing but a strawman.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

jj,

A person(s) has truly believed the moon to be made of green cheese.

Yes or no?

If Yes, can you actually name any?

Waiting.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

........OK, I'm stupid.

...

[Aussie Thinker]

Turtle,

I’ll try and paraphrase here.

What JJ and the others are saying is your assessment of what may have happened is not as valid as you think it is.

You just do not know enough about how the mind works and the failings of human memory and pattern recognition (neither do I BTW) to make a judgement that what you see hear and remember relates to reality.

In simple terms you are NOT qualified.

Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.

You SHOULD say.. hmmm.. what other explanations could their be.. I sure thought I saw the future/ghost/whatever…

When countless other scientific and rational explanations DO exist we wonder why these are not sought out or later ignored by you.

EG (You know I love analogies).. If you saw a pink unicorn, you would immediately say.. well I can’t really trust what I saw.. so it must have been an hallucination etc..

But when you see the future.. you say.. well I just saw it.. that’s that !

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Then when that's over, they spend the rest of their time sniping at people much like jzs does, trying to take things out of context,


What is the worth of the moon is made of green cheese thing if no one, anywhere, ever, has seriously believed that?

Speaking of claims, etc., head to SC to see some discussion of ones Claus has made: Girl6 created SC for skeptics to be uncivil, a letter from Randi is a fake, and several others. I'm sure you'll point these claims, which demand evidence, out to Claus, right? Right?


misrepresent what others say in an attempt to defame them,


Pointing out factual errors, for example, typos on SkepticReport, is not "defaming". You are, as you often are on here, being dramatic.


and in general be incivil, insulting pains in the butt,


"Jeff", over at the SC, whoever he is, was quite rude recently. I've never said anything even approaching that level. Nor have I called people fly excrement, for example, like another person here. But, you'll defend your buddies.. that's emotional human nature instead of dispassionate reasoning.


they hang around to insult others from time to time, I think just for form's sake.

Write me a haiku about it please.

[Chocolate Chip]

Aussie Thinker wrote:
Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.
Turtle,

You are walking through the hot desert and in the distance you see a pool of water. Thirsty, you head towards it, as you approach, it is no longer there. What is the explanation for the disappearance of the pool of water?

1-There really was a pool of water there, but it all evaporated just before I could reach it.

2-It was the ghost of a pool of water and vanished before I could reach it.

3-You experienced a mirage, which is:
an optical effect that is sometimes seen at sea, in the desert, or over a hot pavement, that may have the appearance of a pool of water or a mirror in which distant objects are seen inverted, and that is caused by the bending or reflection of rays of light by a layer of heated air of varying density.

Which explanation is the most rational? Which explanation would a skeptic choose, and which do you think a believer would choose?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
An adult, thanks. And something we can verify, not an anedcote "I once told ...".

Moving the goal posts T'ai?

Why should any evidence be limited to an adult? Particularly when your claim is that you know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? I don't see anything in that statement limiting it to adults - perhaps you'd be kind enough to point out where it is so qualified?

Or did you forget what you claimed? Here it is:

Originally posted by jzs
On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

Originally posted by jzs
No one, ever, has seriously considered the moon to be made of green cheese.

That's really quite a claim, sorry, claims. Positively paranormal in fact. Someone on this forum, I forget who, made big fuss about someone (allegedly) extrapolating data from an (alleged) convenience sample of 7 to an (alleged) entire population. What do you think that person would make of a claim like yours? If such a person found the aforementioned claim so objectionable I'd guess he'd find your claim utterly outrageous. Don't you think?

Of course, you were responding to jj's statement. Here it is:

Originally posted by jj
I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build a new moon rocket and send it flying up there on behalf of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild.

Now, personally I can't see how anyone could possibly take jj's statement as anything other than a mere rhetorical device, but since you obviously feel so strongly about how it must be taken literally, I am somewhat surprised that you didn't ask for evidence of the existence of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild. Why is that? Do you intend to let such a claim (I don't think it's a claim, but you obviously do since you're making an issue of it) go unchallenged?

By the way, I don't understand something, perhaps you'd be kind enough to clarify. Why did you ask for evidence that someone had ever believed the moon to be made of green cheese? I mean, since you have already claimed to know absolutely what all people in the entire history of the universe have ever believed, I can't see why you would need to ask. So I can only conclude that either you are playing games or perhaps you don't know what you claimed to know. So perhaps it would be better to simply ask:

jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.

Originally posted by jzs
So? If a person has never seriosuly held such a thing to be true, using it to "illustrate" some point illustrates nothing but a strawman.

Really? If someone used it proverbially, as an illustration of something that it is highly improbable that most rational people would believe, that is a strawman? How so? Please feel free to explain.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Moving the goal posts T'ai?


*sigh* Anecdotes are always not evidence. If you believe presenting an anedote is evidence, you are mistaken.


Particularly when your claim is that you know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe?


Until evidence is present to the contrary... that is the default position. If you don't like it, just present evidence. Actual evidence, not your anecdote.


Someone on this forum, I forget who, made big fuss about someone (allegedly) extrapolating data from an (alleged) convenience sample of 7 to an (alleged) entire population.


"alleged" convenience sample? I'll take a sample from the 'books I have available'. That is a convenience sample.


Now, personally I can't see how anyone could possibly take jj's statement as anything other than a mere rhetorical device,


I agree! By not having any real life examples it is only a rhetorical advise, and a strawman at that, since no one actually believes the moon to be made of green cheese.


Why did you ask for evidence that someone had ever believed the moon to be made of green cheese?


I wanted to see if there was a point to even bringing up the people believe the moon is made of green cheese thing. There wasn't. And it wasn't the first time such a thing was used either.


jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.


Waiting for an verifiable example of a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese. No anedotes, please.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs

*sigh* Anecdotes are always not evidence. If you believe presenting an anedote is evidence, you are mistaken.

If in doubt, move the goalposts yet again! No, I don't believe that presenting an anecdote (by the way that's how you spell anecdote) is evidence. I simply related a relevant anecdote that I was aware of and witnessed first hand. Now, would you care to address the point in hand which was that you are demanding evidence of adult belief when previously it was all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

Originally posted by jzs
Until evidence is present to the contrary... that is the default position. If you don't like it, just present evidence. Actual evidence, not your anecdote.

Excuse me!!??? The "default position" is that we should unconditionally accept that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the entire history of the universe? Dude, go see a shrink! Better still, go see a whole load of 'em because that is one hell of a God complex! :D

Originally posted by jzs
"alleged" convenience sample? I'll take a sample from the 'books I have available'. That is a convenience sample.

Really? Firstly, please point out to me where someone said/did that. Evidence please. And even someone had said that (which I don't believe anyone did), wouldn't the number of books he had available be a factor? I presume you know precisely how many books he had available? Silly question, of course you do, being omniscient and all... Why don't you just tell me how many books that was?

And just to reiterate the point you obviously forgot to address, even if the above was true, isn't it exceptionally trivial in comparison to your own claim? Isn't an (alleged) population of astrologers somewhat smaller than the population of all people, ever, in the history of the universe? We have your allegation that a claim based on a sample size of 7 was extended to a population of all astrologers. Against that we have your claim (in which the sample size is not stated at all) extended to all people, ever, in the history of the universe. Which do you think is the more improbable? I await your explanation of how you obtained a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe...

Originally posted by jzs
I agree! By not having any real life examples it is only a rhetorical advise, and a strawman at that, since no one actually believes the moon to be made of green cheese.

Do all proverbs have to state real life examples in order to be meaningful?

Originally posted by jzs
I wanted to see if there was a point to even bringing up the people believe the moon is made of green cheese thing. There wasn't. And it wasn't the first time such a thing was used either.

It's a proverb. Are all proverbs pointless?

Originally posted by jzs
Waiting for an verifiable example of a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese. No anedotes, please.

Hey, I wouldn't move those goal posts too much, you'll wear them out! :) Remember, your claim was not about a person who believes in the present, but about anybody who believed, ever, in the entire history of the universe. Sorry to be so pedantic, but there are certain people on here who are obsessed with pedantry to the most extreme degree, and if you don't qualify every single word, check every single possible typo, they'll stalk you incessantly and make a quite ridiculous fuss about it. Hard to believe I know, but it's true. So I say this only to warn you of the kind of reception you might receive from some misguided individuals. By the way you spelled "anecdote" wrongly again...

Oh, by the way, my apologies but I missed your answer to my question, which was:

jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Turtle,

I’ll try and paraphrase here.

What JJ and the others are saying is your assessment of what may have happened is not as valid as you think it is.

You just do not know enough about how the mind works and the failings of human memory and pattern recognition (neither do I BTW) to make a judgement that what you see hear and remember relates to reality.

In simple terms you are NOT qualified.

Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.

You SHOULD say.. hmmm.. what other explanations could their be.. I sure thought I saw the future/ghost/whatever…

When countless other scientific and rational explanations DO exist we wonder why these are not sought out or later ignored by you.

EG (You know I love analogies).. If you saw a pink unicorn, you would immediately say.. well I can’t really trust what I saw.. so it must have been an hallucination etc..

But when you see the future.. you say.. well I just saw it.. that’s that !

What are you talking about? Ghosts? What?

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
What are you talking about? Ghosts? What?

My offer to try to explain the process to you is still open, if you wish to take advantage of it. I may be AFK quite a bit in the near future (business), but if you PM me, I'll remember what this was about.

See my post above, referring to expert testamony, etc, and what evidence means in science for starters.

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj
Debate does not consist of replacing one set of words in a statement with another.

Oh, this is a debate? Sorry.
Yes, I know that. I was being cheeky. :rolleyes:

My comment about perception is an expert perception, based on a career that has studied human perception for give or take 30 years, and for which I have recieved awards, etc, bow wow woof woof from several scientific organizations, various companies, and a couple of other organizations, all with a scientific basis.

Wow. I bow to what you say you have. Can't believe it though, it's just anecdotal. Merely your say so. Prove it.

Since you are now making a statement that appears to be "expert" can you please cite me the SCIENTIFIC basis for your studies, including the SCIENTIFIC evidence. Personal testamonials will not suffice.

Dude, I don't work in a lab. I'm no scientist. I don't wear a white lab coat to work.

I won't get into your being a 'ghost expert',

I didn't say I was a ghost expert. I said I've studied the subject for a very long time, that, combined with my experiences, has shown me that "ghosts" exist. That doesn't mean that every time you're in a creaky house and hear a mouse scramble in the walls it's a ghost. I don't know how else to say all this, and in fact, I won't, since I've done so already.

Say, anyway, doesn't that contradict your statement about citing scientific evidence? If you won't accept the evidence (which is not proof, as I've said many times, oy, does anyone listen in here?) paranormal investigators have, then what are you going on about? It's such a neat little convenient Catch 22: no serious real scientist will go out and hunt ghosts, oh, maybe one or two, for yucks, but not seriously. So of course, there's no "evidence." Bah.


I'm quite aware of what science has discussed and concluded on the subject, and I am not aware, presently, of a single 'ghost expert' who would qualify, scientifically, to authoritively make the statement that you make above.

Ahem. Well, you're looking in the wrong places.

Maybe they didn't see nuttin', I don't know.

In the spirit of inquiry, you may be on to something new, and if you want, I can tell you how to proceed, and how to attempt to move your work on to more solid ground, of course, if you can provide the evidence necessary.

Thanks. I don't need to provide "evidence necessary" -- for what? Big whoop. Believe in ghosts, don't believe in ghosts. I'm just relating my experiences and opinions (based on more than knee jerk "there ain't no such thing" or some such) -- I'm not out to prove anything. I'll leave that to the ghost hunting plumbers on the Sci Fi channel.

Bear in mind that what I do for a living, perceptual coding of audio signals, was once publically denounced in an AES meeting as sheer quackery by a noted authority. It's not impossible to change people's conclusions IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE. As it were, I had all the evidence anyone needed. Do you?

See above.

The evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, observable, verifiable, and repeatable.

I do believe you're repeating yourself.

Your testamony, alone, does not fly. Your belief and insistance, however sincere, do not make a ghost scientific.

lol, I don't think ghosts much care if they're "scientific" or not. . .

You need to make the subject testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable, at the very least. Externally observable would be a good thing, too, i.e. not just something from human perceptions.

I don't "need" to do anything. Although, of course you're correct, in that things like outside cameras, etc. with no human around to mess with things, is a valid way to see what's going on.

What's more, to gather such evidence, you must be able to exclude mudane causes.

Well der. Sort of Basic Ghost Hunting 101.

And more, but I'll settle for those for starters. Can you provide this evidence?

Ah, sure. EVPs -- nothing but ambient sound, or hearing what you wanna hear. Photos, video? Nothing but dust, cigarette smoke, faulty furniture, incorrectly set up lights. The ghost didn't make it fall, vibrations did. Equipment failed 'cuz the batteries were weak. The apparitions were just wishful thinking. Anecdotal evidence, well, please, don't get me started on that! Worthless, you know.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Aussie Thinker wrote:

Turtle,

You are walking through the hot desert and in the distance you see a pool of water. Thirsty, you head towards it, as you approach, it is no longer there. What is the explanation for the disappearance of the pool of water?

1-There really was a pool of water there, but it all evaporated just before I could reach it.

2-It was the ghost of a pool of water and vanished before I could reach it.

3-You experienced a mirage, which is:
an optical effect that is sometimes seen at sea, in the desert, or over a hot pavement, that may have the appearance of a pool of water or a mirror in which distant objects are seen inverted, and that is caused by the bending or reflection of rays of light by a layer of heated air of varying density.

Which explanation is the most rational? Which explanation would a skeptic choose, and which do you think a believer would choose?

ROF, amazing. Wow.

First of all, since it's a risk that one would see a mirage in the desert, and people see them quite often in those conditions, and don't often see ghosts, especially "the ghost of a pool of water," (LOL) it wouldn't occur to me that I'm seeing ghosts. I would occur to me that I'm in very deep trouble, since the water I am so longing for is not as close to me as I thought, and I'm going to die if I don't get some right quick.

That, and I hate the desert, so my being out there in the first place is pretty remote.

[jj]

Originally posted by turtle
[B]Wow. I bow to what you say you have. Can't believe it though, it's just anecdotal. Merely your say so. Prove it.


So, we see the truth coming out. The information you seek is readily available at the bottom of every post I make.

Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.

Remember, whenever you want to try to move ahead, you know where to find help.

Until you work on the repeatability, falsifiablity, and so on, you're going to get nowhere.

You might start by reading some basic psychological literature on memory, perception, and learning. That might help settle on the language at least.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
If in doubt, move the goalposts yet again!


Not at all. Anecdotes were never evidence, and they still aren't. Relating a story about a child is not evidence.


I simply related a relevant anecdote that I was aware of and witnessed first hand.


Which is an anecdote, which is not evidence of what I asked for.


Now, would you care to address the point in hand which was that you are demanding evidence of adult belief when previously it was all people, ever, in the history of the universe?


Children believe in all sorts of things. Should I include their pet rocks too? They don't have a fully adjusted brain that is capable of understanding how the world works. Adults only please. Got any examples yet?


Excuse me!!??? The "default position" is that we


Yes. There is no evidence for anyone, ever, seriously thinking the moon is made out of green cheese. I've offered to be proved wrong. Evidence would do that. Got any?


Dude, go see a shrink!


That's simply ad hominem. Got any evidence? Why not?


Really?


Yes.


Firstly, please point out to me where someone said/did that.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870400859#1870400859

"They were found in the astrology books I have access to."


And even someone had said that (which I don't believe anyone did),


He looked at the books he had access to. He didn't randomly sample from a larger population of charts.


wouldn't the number of books he had available be a factor?


Let's hear what you have to say about that. I'll wait.


I presume you know precisely how many books he had available? Silly question, of course you do, being omniscient and all... Why don't you just tell me how many books that was?


Irrelevant. He got 7 astrological charts via a convenience sample.


even if the above was true, isn't it exceptionally trivial in comparison to your own claim?


Do you see the way your posts go? You try to cover every possibility, with every possibility being a negative outcome for me. ie. 'find evidence, I doubt you can', 'if you do find the evidence, your interpretation is wrong because of x y and z.' 'But if x y or z happen to be true, then your claim is still insignificant'.

You are simply biased and don't let the evidence lead you to a conclusion; you already have your conclusion prior to the evidence.


Isn't an (alleged) population of astrologers somewhat smaller than the population of all people, ever, in the history of the universe?


Certainly.


We have your allegation that a claim based on a sample size of 7 was extended to a population of all astrologers.


Claus says the inference was to the population of astrologers that uses such compatibility charts. Even so, making inferences to any population is not legit going by how he sampled. The evidence for this is found in many introductory stats. books that tell you when you can and cannot infer.


Against that we have your claim (in which the sample size is not stated at all) extended to all people, ever, in the history of the universe. Which do you think is the more improbable?


What exactly is my claim?


I await your explanation of how you obtained a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe...


When did I ever state I could "obtain a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe"? Please show me the exact quote.


Do all proverbs have to state real life examples in order to be meaningful?


Still waiting for someone who really believes the moon is made from green cheese. The matter of the evidence still eludes you.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.


Calling people provacateurs is not being provoking?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hmm... well, for the record, I don't believe in psychic powers, weak or otherwise. However, I think I should point out that if there really are weak powers, your comment may not be valid.

We all know that the odds favor the house, which is how they make their money. But - would the casinos even notice someone who broke even as opposed to someone who wins consistently and walks out with a profit? I think they're focused on the "winners" - and probably only the consistent ones, at that.

Someone who "breaks even" is beating the odds on a regular basis, though. If the inconsistency of "weak powers" gave someone only slightly better odds , a casino-going "weak" psychic might only lose a very little... or perhaps break even.

Ergo, no big winners - just someone who's not a loser.

I see your point. However, if you just would break even, there's not much point in gambling anyway. If you keep on walking out with a profit, surely there must be at least a few who couldn't just stop when they had won a few hundred bucks. And those people would be noticed.

You walk out from a casino with $50,000, you are bound to get noticed. Think the casinos don't exchange information on big winners? You bet they do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Isn't that proving a negative? I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal. I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing. I was there, you weren't. I can't prove it, sure, but you cannot disprove I didn't see a ghost. Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

How do you suggest we test for ghosts?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese.

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the questions:

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Speaking of claims, etc., head to SC to see some discussion of ones Claus has made: Girl6 created SC for skeptics to be uncivil, a letter from Randi is a fake, and several others. I'm sure you'll point these claims, which demand evidence, out to Claus, right? Right?

...

Pointing out factual errors, for example, typos on SkepticReport, is not "defaming". You are, as you often are on here, being dramatic.

...

"Jeff", over at the SC, whoever he is, was quite rude recently. I've never said anything even approaching that level. Nor have I called people fly excrement, for example, like another person here. But, you'll defend your buddies.. that's emotional human nature instead of dispassionate reasoning.

Take your petty personal wars elsewhere.

[edthedoc]

I've got a slight infection at the moment.

Does that make me a septic skeptic?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by edthedoc
I've got a slight infection at the moment.

Does that make me a septic skeptic?

If you clean a wound, are you an antiseptic skeptic?

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by turtle
ROF, amazing. Wow.

First of all, since it's a risk that one would see a mirage in the desert, and people see them quite often in those conditions, and don't often see ghosts, especially "the ghost of a pool of water," (LOL) it wouldn't occur to me that I'm seeing ghosts. I would occur to me that I'm in very deep trouble, since the water I am so longing for is not as close to me as I thought, and I'm going to die if I don't get some right quick.

That, and I hate the desert, so my being out there in the first place is pretty remote.

Glad to see you find this amusing.
But please answer the rest of my question, what do YOU think a believer would choose, and why? As well, what a skeptic would choose, and why? Do you think even though it may be a common occurence for mirages to appear, that a believer would think the pool of water was a mirage? The questions may seem silly to you, but they may give some insight into how different people react to a situation, based on what their belief system is.

Then again, you could go back to rolling on the floor if you like.:)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Jesus, I missed a lot. OK, turtle, you tell me I am incorrect that you cannot show the efficacy of your standards for evidence. Show me.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Take your petty personal wars elsewhere.

Looks like you've taken yours elsewhere. I still can't believe you said what you did re: Girl6's intentions for SC. Shame on you.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the questions:

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the question:

Where is evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese?

Evasion noted.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I see your point. However, if you just would break even, there's not much point in gambling anyway. If you keep on walking out with a profit, surely there must be at least a few who couldn't just stop when they had won a few hundred bucks. And those people would be noticed.

You walk out from a casino with $50,000, you are bound to get noticed. Think the casinos don't exchange information on big winners? You bet they do.


Hehe... saying that there's not much of a point in gambling just because you would break even is kind of funny, if you think about it... because the vast majority of gamblers lose, and they still keep gambling anyway. ;)

But yes, you're absolutely right about big winners. But unless they hit a slot or something with major odds, they're not going to win big unless they bet big. And if they bet big, they're going to lose big AND win big... and yeah, the house will track them over time to see if it's a net loss or win for the house. (Part of the reason casinos comp big winners is to get the money back, and yeah - they track what happens after the person arrives. A net break-even might be interesting to them, but it wouldn't set off any alarm bells. (I don't think it would, anyway.)

After all, casinos are looking for cheaters, card counters, etc. If someone's apparently not cheating and is just breaking even over a few months, they might be curious... but not concerned as in "Get out of my casino, dude!". :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the question:

Where is evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese?

Evasion noted.

No evasion at all. It's just that you seem to know exactly what claims are "serious" or not, solely based on your own prejudices.

That's a rather bigoted approach. If a paranormal claim isn't to your liking, then you dismiss it summarily.

Is it because it doesn't sound scientific enough? Are you too much of a snob to even deal with something like this?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Glad to see you find this amusing.
But please answer the rest of my question, what do YOU think a believer would choose, and why? As well, what a skeptic would choose, and why? Do you think even though it may be a common occurence for mirages to appear, that a believer would think the pool of water was a mirage? The questions may seem silly to you, but they may give some insight into how different people react to a situation, based on what their belief system is.

Then again, you could go back to rolling on the floor if you like.:)


I thought I did answer the question. I don't speak for believers, or skeptics. Just me. Although, of course I can give opinions on both. I assume, giving both groups the benefit of a doubt, that both groups would have the same response I would re: the mirage example. The only thing different would be their personal opinion about deserts. Some peple like 'em, I don't.

"Based on their belief system" well, I know (oops! Here comes a personal story again! Better duck.) a few people who've seen "ghosts" who didn't believe in them. One person actually tried to punch one out, which is one of the funnier things I've heard. I also know others who "believe" in ghosts, yet have never seen one. So there goes that theory.

And yes, I'm still ROF -- the whole somber serious pompous green cheese thread is quite funny.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you suggest we test for ghosts?

How do you?

Seems that the way things are going so far works. . .

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj
So, we see the truth coming out. The information you seek is readily available at the bottom of every post I make.

Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.

Remember, whenever you want to try to move ahead, you know where to find help.

Until you work on the repeatability, falsifiablity, and so on, you're going to get nowhere.

You might start by reading some basic psychological literature on memory, perception, and learning. That might help settle on the language at least.

Perhaps you should stop being so patronizing and understand that I was being sarcastic re: your creditionals, although, if people here can seriously argue about green cheese and the moon, it should be taken seriously that I question what others here say about themselves.

I know what an anecdote is, why do you think I do not?

I have no idea what you mean about "parroting in jzs" or your little comment on being a "provacateur."

And I've gotten plenty of places, thank you. As well as read quite a bit on "basic psychological literature."

You want to test for ghosts, go ahead. Let us know what you found out.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
How do you?

Seems that the way things are going so far works. . .

Not with me. Answer the question. Please.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Not at all. Anecdotes were never evidence, and they still aren't. Relating a story about a child is not evidence.

Yes, that's why I said it wasn't evidence. :rolleyes:

Although there is an aspect to this that needs to be taken into account. How is it possible to show any non anecdotal evidence of what anyone believes? The only way a normal, non-omniscient mortal can determine what someone believes is to ask them. And the response, given that it is simply what that person relates about their own beliefs - is by some definitions purely anecdotal. Either you believe what people say about their beliefs or you don't. If you don't believe them you can never be satisfied as you set an impossible standard.

I, of course, see no reason why I shouldn't believe some people when they say they held such a belief at some time. It is rather to pointless to argue with someone about whether or not they ever believed a particular thing - unless you believe yourself to be omniscient and therefore capable of independently determining their thought processes.

Therefore the only possible evidence that can be offered is what people claim about their beliefs. My son claims he believed me. Other people claim they held such a belief in the past, for example:

http://iusedtobelieve.com/nature/outer_space/outer_space_d11.php

Greg

When I was very young my Grandfather told me how the moon was made of Green Cheese. My evil older sister told me how the moon was important to life everywhere, and if it wasn't here we would all die. She also told me everytime I ate cheese from earth, I was taking it away from the moon, and if I ate too much cheese, the world would colapse. She was always mean.

or another unnamed person:

http://iusedtobelieve.com/food/nasty_food/nasty_food_d2.php

When I was about six, my best friend told me the moon was made of green cheese. I wouldn't eat cheese again for years.

I am far more inclined to believe my own son, and these people above that they once believed the moon was made of green cheese, than I am to believe that you are omniscient. Sorry.

Originally posted by jzs
Children believe in all sorts of things. Should I include their pet rocks too? They don't have a fully adjusted brain that is capable of understanding how the world works. Adults only please. Got any examples yet?

Irrelevent. And that is simply intellectually dishonest. You are moving the goal posts to avoid responsibility for your claim. Your claim was not limited to adults, it was about all people, ever, in the history of the universe - which clearly includes children. It is your claim I contest, not the strawman you would rather I addressed. You have some examples above which directly address your claim.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Excuse me!!??? The "default position" is that we should unconditionally accept that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the entire history of the universe?

Originally posted by jzs
Yes.

Ohmigod. You said it. Don't blame me for the consequences.

Originally posted by jzs
There is no evidence for anyone, ever, seriously thinking the moon is made out of green cheese. I've offered to be proved wrong. Evidence would do that. Got any?

Yes there is, above I have shown some of the only evidence that is possible for such - you are proved wrong.

Originally posted by jzs
That's simply ad hominem. Got any evidence? Why not?

No, it's a joke, but there is precious little evidence that you have a sense of humor. Joking aside, I am seriously concerned about your mental health given that you believe yourself to be omniscient...

Originally posted by jzs
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870400859#1870400859

"They were found in the astrology books I have access to."

That wasn't what I asked for. I asked for evidence in support of your claim which was:

Originally posted by jzs
"alleged" convenience sample? I'll take a sample from the 'books I have available'. That is a convenience sample.

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Sigh...guess I do.

"books I have available" <> "books I have access to"

For example, at this moment in time, speaking for myself I have about 20,000 books "available" - but I have access to books in a host of bookshops and public libraries, a couple of million of them at a rough guess.

Therefore I take your response as evidence that you are unable to provide evidence in support of your claim - again.

Originally posted by jzs
He looked at the books he had access to. He didn't randomly sample from a larger population of charts.

He never stated whether or not he randomly chose some books from the larger population of those he had access to. So therefore how do you know what he did? Oh, I forgot, you're omniscient... :)

Originally posted by jzs
Let's hear what you have to say about that. I'll wait.

Isn't it obvious? If he had access to an extremely large number of books is it likely that he read every single one of them? And if that is not likely, then isn't it more likely that he simply chose some of them more or less randomly?

Originally posted by jzs
Irrelevant. He got 7 astrological charts via a convenience sample.

No, very relevant. If you don't know how many books he chose his sample from, or under what conditions, you are in no position to call it a "convenience sample". You merely assume it was a convenience sample - and I'm sorry but I don't believe your claim to be omniscient. I require objective evidence not your assumptions or your improbable claims. So please show evidence in respect of the number of books that Claus had access to, and explain why, out of that population, his specific choices constitute a "convenience sample".

By the way, on a related issue, elsewhere you said that a convenience sample of 7 could never be meaningfully extended to any population - or words to that effect - I disagree. I believe a convenience sample of 7 from a population of 8 would be meaningful. Am I wrong? And if so, why?

What is the population of astrologers who use those charts? You must know it to be able to say the sample is insignificant, mustn't you? Although the point is moot for other reasons explained below.

Originally posted by jzs
Do you see the way your posts go? You try to cover every possibility, with every possibility being a negative outcome for me. ie. 'find evidence, I doubt you can', 'if you do find the evidence, your interpretation is wrong because of x y and z.' 'But if x y or z happen to be true, then your claim is still insignificant'.

I try to cover every possibility - I try to consider all the angles before commenting - it's called being thorough. :) The fact that the elementary logical outcome of any serious analysis of your various claims tends to always have a negative outcome for you however, has much more to do with the quality of your arguments. It's hardly my fault that any detailed analysis of your claims tends to make you look rather foolish! :)

Originally posted by jzs
You are simply biased and don't let the evidence lead you to a conclusion; you already have your conclusion prior to the evidence.

What evidence? You simply duck most questions, you answer questions with questions, you shift the goalposts, you answer questions that weren't asked, you evade, ignore, twist and turn. And above all you don't provide evidence, you provide speculation, assumption and improbable claims. I have asked you several times for evidence in support of your claim that you can know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe. Where is that evidence? Care to point it out to me?

Where is the evidence as to the population of books that Claus chose from? Care to point it out to me?

Where is the evidence as to how Claus chose the books and that it is non-random? Care to point it out to me?

Where is the evidence as to the population of astrologers who use those charts? Care to point it out to me?

Since you don't provide evidence I am entitled to draw a conclusion from the absence of evidence almost every time you start making claims. That conclusion is that you don't have any evidence to back your claims, that your claims are simply based on assumption or erroneous conclusions. Does that make me biased? I guess it does - if one defines "bias" as being influenced by the evidence or lack thereof...

Originally posted by jzs
Claus says the inference was to the population of astrologers that uses such compatibility charts. Even so, making inferences to any population is not legit going by how he sampled. The evidence for this is found in many introductory stats. books that tell you when you can and cannot infer.

Yeah, he told you that several times - even back when you were posting as "T'ai Chi". So why were you hounding him recently to answer the question he had already answered a long time ago?

But let's address your latest claim. The validity of an inference to a population in respect of some commonly used item (such as these astrological charts) depends very much on the size of that population, the size of the population of charts, and the subset of charts (from the population of charts) that the larger population of people tends to use. Therefore in order to be able to say in general terms whether or not any given sample is significant or not, one needs to know these factors. I don't pretend to have any expertise in statistics, but that much is self-evident, regardless of what any introductory text book has to say on the matter. But, if one of the factors highly constrains the others - for example one infers to a specific sub set who do a particular thing - then, without prejudice one can reasonably state that said inference is valid because it is self-limiting in extent. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to show any way in which it is not valid, e.g.

Claus refers to a specific set of charts. The charts are shown clearly in his article. His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Any astrologer that bases his/her advice on that set of charts should be statistically in error precisely to the extent that Claus shows. And even you agreed on the specific percentages.

Let me give another example. Let us suppose there is a gun. Every time that gun was fired, it was used to murder someone. Therefore is it reasonable to infer that every person who fired that gun is a murderer? Of course it is. How is any other conclusion possible? It doesn't matter how or why I chose that particular gun. If those are the facts in relation to that particular gun then the inference is valid for that particular gun and the population who used it. Elementary logic, no statistics required.

It makes no difference whether it is a convenience sample or not. It doesn't matter what the sample size is. Your criticisms are invalid. End of story.

Originally posted by jzs
What exactly is my claim?

Do you have a short term memory problem? One could certainly be forgiven for believing so...

Here you are:

Originally posted by jzs
On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

Originally posted by jzs
No one, ever, has seriously considered the moon to be made of green cheese.

Remember them now? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jzs
When did I ever state I could "obtain a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe"? Please show me the exact quote.

You didn't. Nor did I say you did. I offered you that as an option to get yourself out of your apparently absurd claim to omniscience. You could have shown that you inferred the above improbable claims based on a fair sampling. Obviously you didn't. The point is of course moot with your admission above that you consider it reasonable that I should unconditionally accept that you are omniscient.

Originally posted by jzs
Still waiting for someone who really believes the moon is made from green cheese. The matter of the evidence still eludes you.

No it doesn't. I've given you the only reasonably possible evidence of such above - the personal testimony of some people to that effect. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

[thaiboxerken]

This is funny. Bleevers, again, want to hold themselves as being the "true" skeptics. If you don't agree with them that there are ghosts, psi and gods, then you aren't a real skeptic....

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by turtle
I thought I did answer the question. I don't speak for believers, or skeptics. Just me. Although, of course I can give opinions on both. I assume, giving both groups the benefit of a doubt, that both groups would have the same response I would re: the mirage example. The only thing different would be their personal opinion about deserts. Some peple like 'em, I don't.

"Based on their belief system" well, I know (oops! Here comes a personal story again! Better duck.) a few people who've seen "ghosts" who didn't believe in them. One person actually tried to punch one out, which is one of the funnier things I've heard. I also know others who "believe" in ghosts, yet have never seen one. So there goes that theory.

And yes, I'm still ROF -- the whole somber serious pompous green cheese thread is quite funny.

Let's just stick with your answer then. You chose the mirage over the "ghost" option. You chose the SCIENTIFIC explanation over the PARANORMAL explanation.......wow, amazing. That's pretty inconsistent considering you prefer to accept a paranormal explanation for premonitions over a scientific explanation. The mirage answer was of course the right answer. Whether you like deserts or not is irrelevant.

Both "disappearing" pools of water and "premonitions" have a scientific explanation, yet you only accept a scientific expalnation for one. Link for scientific explanation of deja-vu/premonitions:
http://niazi.com/Neurons/djv.htm
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000F0615-85C1-1CD9-B4A8809EC588EEDF

How is it YOUR belief system allows for one but not the other? In fact, the last time we discussed the cause for premonitions, you dismissed the scientific view without really understanding what it was. Yes I can provide the link to that thread if needed.

Whether you don't see many "ghosts of pools of water" in the desert is irrelevant as well, it's the believer's belief system that would allow for "ghosts" anywhere, and a ghost for anything. Why do reports of "ghost" sightings have a clothed ghost? Like a pool of water, clothes are inanimate, no soul, yet they appear along with the ghost.
Even trains can have a ghost according to some belief systems:
http://ncghosts.t35.com/train.htm

Yes, I know, you don't want to play repeat theatre about your episodes of "premonitions". But I will say this, perhaps as a gesture good faith, can you post your previous writings for those premonitions you already discussed. You could scan them (only the relevant parts, of course) and then post them on the forum. I'm sure someone would help you out with the technical details, I know I could, if necessary.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Yes, that's why I said it wasn't evidence.


Then why even mention it if it can't possibly support your case?


How is it possible to show any non anecdotal evidence of what anyone believes?


Show the actual evidence, not stories! There might be stories of bigfoot, of people believing in bigfoot, but until you show the carcass or the live creature, you don't have much. It is up to you to find the actual evidence to support your claim.


Other people claim they held such a belief in the past, for example:


More anectodes 'he said she said' stuff, and they again are children.


You are moving the goal posts to avoid responsibility for your claim. Your claim was not limited to adults, it was about all people, ever, in the history of the universe


I merely clarified my stance to avoid the ridiculous examples of childrens' imaginations. Still no evidence of any adult, right?

You expect one to take your word that your child believed in it, or those other people did when they were children? How about some verifiable evidence, please.


I am seriously concerned about your mental health given that you believe yourself to be omniscient...


Ad hominem and strawman.


"books I have available" <> "books I have access to"


Ask him if he randomly sampled for astrological charts.


He never stated whether or not he randomly chose some books from the larger population of those he had access to. So therefore how do you know what he did?


Ask him. Get your clarification right from the source.


And if that is not likely, then isn't it more likely that he simply chose some of them more or less randomly?


"more or less randomly". Care to explain what that means exactly?


If you don't know how many books he chose his sample from, or under what conditions, you are in no position to call it a "convenience sample".


And you are in no position to defend him either. All we know is he looked at 2 books he had access to. From these, he got 7 charts. Will he clarify how he got the books?


I'm sorry but I don't believe your claim to be omniscient.


Strawman.


So please show evidence in respect of the number of books that Claus had access to,


The number is irrelevant, as I've said. It is up to him to present the details of his study, the details of which he did not write about.


, elsewhere you said that a convenience sample of 7 could never be meaningfully extended to any population


I don't think I said it wouldn't ever be meaningful, just that technically one cannot make inferences because they weren't sampled in a random manner. You have no way of knowing if those samples are representative.


What is the population of astrologers who use those charts?


Those specific 7 ones, or such charts in general?


You must know it to be able to say the sample is insignificant, mustn't you?


No. The manner of sampling tells me that the inference is not valid.


What evidence? You simply duck most questions, you answer questions with questions


Count how many questions you asked in your "answers" to me, please. Then see if that number is larger or smaller than the number of questions I ask you.


your claim that you can know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe.


Strawman.

What I specifically said was no one, ever, has believed the moon is really made of green cheese. I further qualified this by talking specifically about adults to avoid the issue with childrens' imaginations and inexperience with the world. This the is the default position, as no evidence has been presented for the contrary. If you have some, feel free to present it.


Where is the evidence as to the population of books that Claus chose from? Care to point it out to me?


You should really ask him for the specifics of his study.


Where is the evidence as to how Claus chose the books and that it is non-random? Care to point it out to me?


He said the books that he has access to. Please, ask him if he randomly sampled them.

His paper shows 7 charts; 3 from a single book and 4 from another single book. Then he goes on to talk about "astrologers" in general and asking "your" astrologer, etc. A "third of the time the advice you get from your astrologer will be completely random". I'm sorry, but how do you know about my astrologer (hypothetical here) based on that? Are you assuming my astrologer uses charts by Danish astrologers? How odd.


The validity of an inference to a population in respect of some commonly used item (such as these astrological charts) depends very much on the size of that population, the size of the population of charts, and the subset of charts (from the population of charts) that the larger population of people tends to use. Therefore in order to be able to say in general terms whether or not any given sample is significant or not, one needs to know these factors.


The method of sampling determines if inference is valid or not.


, regardless of what any introductory text book has to say on the matter.


No, let's look at what they do say, since that is very important here. Page 5 of this .pdf file http://osu.orst.edu/instruct/st511/schafer/displays_2nd_ed/overheads1_8.PDF addresses this.


But, if one of the factors highly constrains the others - for example one infers to a specific sub set who do a particular thing - then, without prejudice one can reasonably state that said inference is valid because it is self-limiting in extent. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to show any way in which it is not valid, e.g.


I'm hardpressed to understand what that meant.


Claus refers to a specific set of charts.


He sampled those, yes.


The charts are shown clearly in his article.


That is true, they are.


His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.


Let's get some things straight:

a) Those exact 7 charts, or

b) similar astrological charts- not those specific ones?


If a), the article wording is a bid odd, talking about astrologers in general, saying astrologers (again, addressing all of them) disagree more than they agree, and talking about asking your astrologer. Why would my astrologer (again, hypothetical) in the USA, use a Danish chart? Why would a person in China why would their astrologer be using those charts? ie. he was mistaken to speak of astrologers in general; in fact, the article was misleading. The article should refer to the specific sample when presenting his conclusions.

If b), no, the inference is not valid. Because the 7 charts were not sampled randomly, we have no way of knowing if they are representative or not.


It makes no difference whether it is a convenience sample or not.


It most certainly does if we are talking about b). If a), then the article is very misleading by not referring to the specific sample when presenting the conclusions.


It doesn't matter what the sample size is.


I agree. It is the method of sampling here that is important. Go ask him... just how did he sample? Ask for specific details.

b[
Do you have a short term memory problem?
[/b]

More ad hominem.


to get yourself out of your apparently absurd claim to omniscience.


Same strawman.


you consider it reasonable that I should unconditionally accept that you are omniscient.


Same strawman again.


I've given you the only reasonably possible evidence of such above - the personal testimony of some people to that effect. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

Testimony, and you admit it is testimony, is not evidence. So there we are, you still have no evidence for an adult truly believing the moon is made out of green cheese, and my default position is still the default position.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jzs
What I specifically said was no one, ever, has believed the moon is really made of green cheese. I further qualified this by talking specifically about adults to avoid the issue with childrens' imaginations and inexperience with the world. This the is the default position, as no evidence has been presented for the contrary. If you have some, feel free to present it.

The point behind that example was:

"Some adults believe patently absurd things with all sincerity."

Personally, my list of these 'patently absurd things' includes but is not limited to:
- homeopathy.
- hollow earth.
- the 'fictional' nature of the holocaust.
- the moon landing hoax.
- the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.
- pet pyschics.
- that humans are 'naturally' herbivores or carnivores.
- Nigerian 419 scams.

Now, you will probably agree with me on some, but not all of the above items, and it's hard to predict which ones. I'm sure you can imagine this conversation:

"Some people honestly believe absurd things."

"Oh yeah? Name one."

"Well, some people believe the President of the United States is actually an alien in a mask."

"Of course they do! The President is an alien in a mask!"

*head desk*

The 'moon is made of green cheese', in a similar way to 'invisible pink unicorns', at least stands a good chance of not being believed by the other person. Given what we know of human nature it seems highly possible that at least some adult somewhere believes it, but it was chosen because it was obscure.

Is your stance honestly that no adult sincerely believes anything absurd?

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip


How is it YOUR belief system allows for one but not the other? In fact, the last time we discussed the cause for premonitions, you dismissed the scientific view without really understanding what it was.


I’ve noticed that many people can hold a duality of thought regarding scientific and skeptical thinking. Skepticism and science frequently become tools to sustain one belief system over another. It’s occasionally impossible make a valid point due to a sort of hodge-podge citation of *selected* facts mixed freely with unsubstantiated beliefs. We therefore see a descending spiral where any valid points or arguments are removed in favor of supporting evidence.

The problem with this way of thinking is simply, it seems right but it’s not. It’s not really an effective form of discussion at all. Only when an open minded approach that effectively labels opinion and belief *as* opinion and belief is used can this kind of subject move forward.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by turtle
Some time ago I came across this suggestion for a new definition of terms in Fortean Times magazine. The recent discussion on the other thread "Challenge to Skeptics" inspired me to post this here. (I thought it better to start a new thread instead of further jumbling up the topics over there.)

"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02


English is a living language in that it does change every several generations or so. But, I don’t think re interpreting sceptic and skeptic is particularly a good idea because it smacks of brush-labeling and not really an attempt at getting close to one of many issues, other than “closed minded skeptics annoy me ARRG!�

It seems to me that the real issue is closed minded vs. open minded people, not whether we should create a description of one or the other. Closed mindedness is a problem, on both sides of the fence and there are militant and not so militant people. I have no real problem accepting that others might have different opinions than I do. I have difficulty having one’s opinions couched as facts and pushed on my and I really dislike sticking labels on people. People have a huge variation of opinion regarding a vast array of subjects, good, bad right or wrong (skeptic or skeptic) they all have a right to their opinions without having to be labeled *as* something.

However it’s OK to say “I think your opinion is closed minded.� It’s not ok to say “you are a skeptic and because I spell it this way, that makes you a closed minded jerk.�

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
English is a living language in that it does change every several generations or so. But, I don’t think re interpreting sceptic and skeptic is particularly a good idea because it smacks of brush-labeling and not really an attempt at getting close to one of many issues, other than “closed minded skeptics annoy me ARRG!�

It seems to me that the real issue is closed minded vs. open minded people, not whether we should create a description of one or the other. Closed mindedness is a problem, on both sides of the fence and there are militant and not so militant people.

Well, that's a claim, certainly. But there's also another issue that you're glossing over in an attempt to be "open-minded" and fair about it. Phrased as provocatively as I can -- Prove that there are, in fact, "closed-minded skeptics."

One could argue that the very definition of "skeptic" requires openmindedness, since skepticism is a quest for evidence -- which must be provided from the outside. (This verges, of course, on the One True Scotsman fallacy -- a closed-minded "disbeliever" is of course not a True Skeptic. Whatever). But my point goes further, which is that this closed-minded disbeliever appears to be a myth, created and sustained only by the beliefs of the credulists.

Turtle's quotation provides an immediate definition of closed-minded "militant skepticism" : the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible. This also, implicitly, attributes this premise to CSICOP, but without supporting evidence. In Dr. A's followup thread, he asked explicitly if anyone could be found who actually did believe that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible." Again, several examples were offered where credulist sources attributed this positiion to a number of prominent skeptics, but there were no confirmed sightings or self-identifications.

I believe this "closed-minded disbeliever" is a myth --- or so rare as to be practically a myth. I believe that the claims of "closed-mindedness" originating from the believers are based, not in realistic assessments, but in misguided frustration on their part. The believers, by and large, either do not accept or more likely do not understand (or both) the standard rules of evidence underlying scientific and philosophical inquiry.

I further submit that closed-mindedness is NOT a problem on the "skeptical"/scientific side of the fence. (I would actually submit that too much open-mindedness is the problem; witness the attention that ID, or homeopathy, or CAM, or get in the press, and the lack of government response. The FDA should have shut down the entire nutritional supplement industry decades ago.)

[DrWoo]

Followed with great interest.

Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread and, to be brutally honest, those examples are an insult to skepticism.

However, sceptic is just the correct, English, word, corrupted through the American lexicon to include the 'k', which imo gives the word a certain takkiness.

Thank you an illuminating subject.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, that's a claim, certainly. But there's also another issue that you're glossing over in an attempt to be "open-minded" and fair about it. Phrased as provocatively as I can -- Prove that there are, in fact, "closed-minded skeptics."



SKeptics are close-minded by definition. Or more accurately, skeptics in the traditional use of the word are by definition open-minded (to all possibilities). But sKeptics are the complete and total opposite to this.


But my point goes further, which is that this closed-minded disbeliever appears to be a myth, created and sustained only by the beliefs of the credulists.


{sighs} The vast majority of skeptics on here and elsewhere dismiss any paranormal phenomena out of hand, yet this is a myth?? Look at the contributions in this forum. Read stuff by skeptics; read the Susan Blackmore quote.

I really am sick and tired of you lot disputing the glaringly obvious. What do you hope to achieve by these transparent lies?


Turtle's quotation provides an immediate definition of closed-minded "militant skepticism" : the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible. This also, implicitly, attributes this premise to CSICOP, but without supporting evidence. In Dr. A's followup thread, he asked explicitly if anyone could be found who actually did believe that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible." Again, several examples were offered where credulist sources attributed this positiion to a number of prominent skeptics, but there were no confirmed sightings or self-identifications.


Most skeptics are and most on here are. Anyone who voted in my poll in the 0 - 1% range is, about 80% of people who contribute to this forum. And most well known skeptics are too. One well known skeptic has stated that nothing would convince him of its reality (I think this was Ray Hyman, but can't be absolutely sure)



I believe this "closed-minded disbeliever" is a myth



Can you really truly be that deluded?? And you honestly work at University?? The psychological proclivities of people to believe what they want to believe, in the face of all the evidence, never ceases to astound me.


The believers, by and large, either do not accept or more likely do not understand (or both) the standard rules of evidence underlying scientific and philosophical inquiry.


But the parapsychological research is tighter than in any other area of science. Do you understand that?

And what about all the personal stories of experiences with anomalous phenomena.

There's is absolutely no frustration on my part at all. I just feel bemused because I know you skeptics are wrong (at least in your assertions that no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever). Even without all the evidence, let's face it, it would be absolutely remarkable if modern western ideas about the nature of reality turned out to be completely correct. Be realistic.

[The Mighty Thor]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives:

sceptic, skeptic a. and n.

1. Philos. One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever. Also, often applied in a historically less correct sense, to those who deny the competence of reason, or the existence of any justification for certitude, outside the limits of experience.

and

2. One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g. metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.); popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement. Also, one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper.

So, it is easy to see where the confusion arises.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, that's a claim, certainly. But there's also another issue that you're glossing over in an attempt to be "open-minded" and fair about it. Phrased as provocatively as I can -- Prove that there are, in fact, "closed-minded skeptics."

(snip)

I believe this "closed-minded disbeliever" is a myth --- or so rare as to be practically a myth. I believe that the claims of "closed-mindedness" originating from the believers are based, not in realistic assessments, but in misguided frustration on their part. The believers, by and large, either do not accept or more likely do not understand (or both) the standard rules of evidence underlying scientific and philosophical inquiry.

I further submit that closed-mindedness is NOT a problem on the "skeptical"/scientific side of the fence. (I would actually submit that too much open-mindedness is the problem; witness the attention that ID, or homeopathy, or CAM, or get in the press, and the lack of government response. The FDA should have shut down the entire nutritional supplement industry decades ago.)


It’s very difficult to prove that a person is a closed minded skeptic, open minded or really anything else. We can makes some determination if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded.

I take your point however, most people who understand rules and evidence or comprehend scientific philosophy tend not to be closed minded. It might seem so to those who use sincerity of belief as a form of evidence. In fact it’s kind of understandable, when one believes in something there is a tendency to “manufacture� truth and its very frustrating to have this pointed out over and over again.

This is I think the basic fallacy of “label sticking.� They tend to be unfair and mostly untrue.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Followed with great interest.

Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread and, to be brutally honest, those examples are an insult to skepticism.

However, sceptic is just the correct, English, word, corrupted through the American lexicon to include the 'k', which imo gives the word a certain takkiness.

Thank you an illuminating subject.

No disagreement there.

I never really gave it much thought. I’ve seen it spelled both way s but I always felt “skeptic� was the correct spelling because of the Greek root word.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
SKeptics are close-minded by definition. Or more accurately, skeptics in the traditional use of the word are by definition open-minded (to all possibilities). But sKeptics are the complete and total opposite to this.

The English language is Ian's to modify as he sees fit. He needs no supporting evidence.

Nothing new here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171)

{sighs} The vast majority of skeptics on here and elsewhere dismiss any paranormal phenomena out of hand, yet this is a myth?? Look at the contributions in this forum. Read stuff by skeptics; read the Susan Blackmore quote.[/B]

Ian's been shown that this is false in another thread, but ignores it in typical Ian fashion.

Nothing new here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171)

Maybe one day Ian will have something new to say, but it's not today...

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The Oxford English Dictionary gives:

sceptic, skeptic a. and n.



and



So, it is easy to see where the confusion arises.

The Phyrroian way of the 'sceptic' is, imo, the pure sceptic, as opposed to those who only fuss with doubting metaphysical issues - 'skeptic'.

Would it be right that most here are 'skeptics' only in respect of paranormal matters as opposed to the 'sceptic' who lays doubt to all?

[Dr Adequate]

Neither description seems quite right, DrWoo... or perhaps "lays doubt to all" is ambiguous... I don't seriously doubt that the world is round: I believe it because this notion stands up to doubt, questioning, demands for evidence; because it survives sceptical inquiry.

Whereas a lot of other stuff which I doubt is not necessarily "paranormal"... Nessie, for example, wouldn't be paranormal; nor would aliens making crop circles be paranormal; nor most conspiracy theories; nor a Nigerian I've never met wanting to make me very rich; I doubt them not because they are "paranormal" (what does that mean?) but there doesn't seem to be enough evidence for them.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

I take your point however, most people who understand rules and evidence or comprehend scientific philosophy tend not to be closed minded.

Is this a joke? You either jest or are naive.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor


This is I think the basic fallacy of “label sticking.� They tend to be unfair and mostly untrue. [/B]

I agree. But the clue lies in the words "tend to be".

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Then why even mention it if it can't possibly support your case?

Why can't it possibly support my case? A case does not have to be solely supported by evidence. Logical argument and reasoning can support a case. In this case, I introduce anecdotally an example which indicates that your claim that no person, ever, in the history of the universe could have believed etc., is weak when it comes to children. Because any sane, rational person can at least imagine that children might believe such a thing. Similarly I could have related a story about a mentally retarded adult that I know who believes ridiculous things (he believes that cows jump over the moon!) - which would then allow people to imagine that mentally retarded adults might believe such a thing. I could even have gone further and given an anecdote about a primitive tribesman somewhere in a rain forest who might believe such a thing because he has no education otherwise.

Your claim was that no person, ever, in the history of the universe has ever believed such a thing. I know from my own experience that you are wrong. Almost anyone can easily see that your claim to omniscience is vastly more improbable than the idea that someone (such as a child, mentally retarded adult, an uneducated primitive) might honestly believe such a thing. And since you, yourself tried to weasel out of what you actually said by dismissing children it indicates that you know you have been caught out - but you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Originally posted by jzs
Show the actual evidence, not stories! There might be stories of bigfoot, of people believing in bigfoot, but until you show the carcass or the live creature, you don't have much. It is up to you to find the actual evidence to support your claim.

Outright dishonesty. I repeat, please tell me how anyone can provide evidence of what someone truly believes without asking them what they believe? A belief is not some physical object that can be taken out and shown - unlike bigfoot - as you well know. That is a deliberate straw man. The only reasonably possible evidence that I can think of is to ask someone what they believe and to accept their answer. Therefore the only possible evidence that I am aware of relies on someone's personal testimony as to what they believe. I believe you know that. I believe that your insistence on other evidence is a deliberate straw man because you are completely intellectually dishonest. You may of course prove me wrong simply by showing what other kind of evidence is possible. I don't accept your claim that it is possible for someone to know simply because they believe themselves to be omniscient.

And I remind you, that you have persistently evaded answering to your claim. The onus was never on me to prove the negative of your claim. The onus, was, is and always will be, on you to prove how you can know what all people, ever, in the history of the universe believe/believed. I have gone out of my way to accomodate you even though I was strictly under no obligation to do so. You have made no effort at all to justify your claim. That, again, is intellectual dishonesty.

You can whine, evade and throw up all the straw men you want, but your dishonesty is plain for all to see.

Originally posted by jzs
More anectodes 'he said she said' stuff, and they again are children.

How do you know they are children? Since they say "I used to believe", it's entirely possible that they are adults relating what they used to believe when they were children. This is why people like me take issue with your statements, you are sloppy, you jump to conclusions without properly considering the evidence.

Yes, they are anecdotes. But they are also personal testimonies. Which, in the absence of any plausible alternative, I believe is the only reasonably possible way of determining any person's beliefs. Again, if you maintain that anything other that is possible, please feel free to share it.

Originally posted by jzs
I merely clarified my stance to avoid the ridiculous examples of childrens' imaginations. Still no evidence of any adult, right?

You expect one to take your word that your child believed in it, or those other people did when they were children? How about some verifiable evidence, please.

More dishonesty and a double standard. You hounded Claus demanding to know which astrologers he was referring to. When he told you that he was referring to ones that used those charts (which incidentally is patently obvious from the context of his article), you wanted him to admit that he was "wrong" in allegedly implying all astrologers (strictly according to you of course). But when you do the same thing that you claimed you were crticising him for in this case - to a much greater degree - and you are called on it, you are "merely clarifying your stance". So do you admit that your original claim about all people (not just adults) was wrong? Are you prepared to admit what you demand from others?

Anyway, back to the point at hand. I repeat, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim to know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe. It is not on me to prove the negative of that. It never was. I have however offered some argument in support of that negative. Doing so did not place me under any obligation to provide evidence for the negative. To imply so is outright dishonesty on your part. I do not expect you to take my word that my child believed it. I am simply stating why I think you are wrong. And in respect of the other things I quoted they are the only possible kind of evidence I am aware of in respect of it.

Now, the question is, are you, or are you not, going to show evidence that indicates that it is possible for you to know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

You have been asked numerous times, you have made no effort whatsoever to answer. I asked you for such evidence before you asked me to provide evidence to the negative. I have gone out of my way to accommodate you, but you have simply evaded, twisted and turned.

Can you, or will you, provide evidence of your claims? Yes or no.

Originally posted by jzs
Ad hominem and strawman.

Nonsense. I am not basing any argument on that comment, it is merely an expression of my concern. Which is a legitimate one if you truly believe what you say you do. If on the other hand you are simply being dishonest, then please take it as an expression of my disgust and contempt of your attitude. Which again makes it neither ad hom nor a straw man which are fallacies of argument. I base no argument on the point, so you are wrong - again.

Originally posted by jzs
Ask him if he randomly sampled for astrological charts.

Ask him. Get your clarification right from the source.

Why should I? It's of no interest to me. I've already stated clearly why I don't believe there is any problem and why I think it's irrelevent if he randomly sampled etc. It's you who claims to have a problem with it.

Originally posted by jzs
"more or less randomly". Care to explain what that means exactly?

It means that I don't personally believe that any human action is truly random regardless of intentions. However, where there is a genuine intent to obtain random data and all obvious sources of error are ruled out then I believe it would be fair to say the result can be "more or less random". In other words, I allow for the possibility that the data may not be as random as it seems. Such is life.

Originally posted by jzs
And you are in no position to defend him either. All we know is he looked at 2 books he had access to. From these, he got 7 charts. Will he clarify how he got the books?

I'm calling you on conclusions you jumped to apparently without evidence - if that happens to "defend" Claus at the same time, then so be it. Although Claus hardly needs me to "defend" him! It's you I'm calling out. And yes, precisely, to use your own words, "All we know is he looked at 2 books he had access to. From these, he got 7 charts.". Since that is all we know, then what is the basis for your numerous accusations about poor sampling etc?

There is an old principle in law which it appears you may not be aware of. It's called "innocent until proven guilty". But in your case, you accuse, condemn and demand that people prove their innocence. And since I am fairly sure your response to that will be, "show me exactly where....etc.", I'll answer in advance. In this case with your criticism of Claus. In other cases where you have stalked people with false accusations, like the recent incident where you stalked jj implying he had made a mathematical error when in fact the mathematical error was yours. There are any number of other examples.

Originally posted by jzs
Strawman.

How can that be a straw man? You have claimed that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe. I was fairly sure initially that you hadn't meant to claim that, and that is why I asked if that is what you wanted me to accept as your claim. Your answer to that was, "Yes". Case closed. The fact of the matter is that I don't believe you. It is relevant in the context of allegations you make based on such alleged knowledge and therefore it is not a straw man.

Originally posted by jzs
The number is irrelevant, as I've said. It is up to him to present the details of his study, the details of which he did not write about.

The number is irrelevent? Are you kidding? You make an issue of whether a sample from a population was random, but you believe the size of that population is irrelevent? So if Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2, makes no difference to whether Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2 million? And you claim to know something about statistics? Sheesh! As for the details of the study, Claus gave all the detail that was required to support the inference he made. The fact that you choose to ignore the inference he actually did make (which again I submit was obvious from the context) and choose to claim that he made a totally different one - the onus is on you to show that he did indeed make the inference you claim. And so far you have failed miserably to do so. At worst you have shown that he could possibly have made himself a tiny bit clearer in order not to confuse total idiots who can't extrapolate from context. Big deal. Anything that anybody writes can be potentially misinterpreted by someone stupid (or devious or dishonest) enough. There isn't much that anyone can do about that. Or do you expect Claus to somehow eliminate global stupidity?

Originally posted by jzs
I don't think I said it wouldn't ever be meaningful, just that technically one cannot make inferences because they weren't sampled in a random manner. You have no way of knowing if those samples are representative.

You did say that. But I'll accept that wasn't what you meant.

Listen, if you sample an entire population, then any (reasonable) inference you draw from that sample is valid for that population. It makes no difference if you sample randomly or not if you sample the entire population. And that is the case here. Some charts were obtained. The population in question is the population of astrologers who use those charts. The actual definition of the entire population is question is that they are astrologers who use those charts. People who are not astrologers are not part of that population. Astrologers (and people who are not astrologers) who do not use those charts, are also not part of that population. The inference is extended to this "captive" well defined population, not any other. It makes no difference how the charts were sampled if the inference based on them only extends to the people who actually use the specific charts in question. In other words, if the population to which an inference is drawn is wholly defined by the specific samples chosen then it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how those samples were chosen. As I have said before this is elementary logic.

Originally posted by jzs
Those specific 7 ones, or such charts in general?

Either/any/both. Since you are one insisting that sampling is significant I would expect that you have some idea of the population in question before deciding whether the sample was significant or not, no? Because, as I asked you before, would it be wrong to infer to a population of 8 from a convenience sample of 7 for example? If you have no idea of the population in question, how can you claim it to be insignificant?

Originally posted by jzs
No. The manner of sampling tells me that the inference is not valid.

Really? If, for the sake of argument I were to assert that the population in question is 8, then please explain to me how the method of sampling would alter the significance of a sample of 7 from said population?

Originally posted by jzs
Count how many questions you asked in your "answers" to me, please. Then see if that number is larger or smaller than the number of questions I ask you.

It makes no difference how many questions were asked, the issue is how many questions were answered. Now that's a straw man on your part. Go on, count how many of your questions I have answered. Then count how many of mine you have answered. Please feel free to analyse the answers statistically and post them here. Go on, I dare you...

I have not simply answered most of your questions solely with other questions (or with unqualified judgements such as "ad hom", "strawman"). Can you say the same?

Originally posted by jzs
Strawman.

What I specifically said was no one, ever, has believed the moon is really made of green cheese. I further qualified this by talking specifically about adults to avoid the issue with childrens' imaginations and inexperience with the world. This the is the default position, as no evidence has been presented for the contrary. If you have some, feel free to present it.

Reality check time. You claimed that no-one, ever, in the history of the universe had believed that etc. You did not qualify this. When you were called on it, and I mentioned that children might believe it, you demanded evidence of adults. That was not a qualification, that was moving the goalposts. Call it what you want, it doesn't alter the facts which are there for all to see.

I then specifically asked you if I should accept that you are omniscient as a default position. You answered, "Yes". Those are the facts. They are here in this thread. Lying about it doesn't do you any credit.

Originally posted by jzs
You should really ask him for the specifics of his study.

Why should I? The matter is no concern to me. The information he has given is sufficient and I can't see any error or problem with his inference. You seem to be the only person who has any problem with it. What is really interesting is how you judged it without having sufficient information to make such a judgement. That is why I, and others are calling you on it.

Originally posted by jzs
He said the books that he has access to. Please, ask him if he randomly sampled them.

His paper shows 7 charts; 3 from a single book and 4 from another single book. Then he goes on to talk about "astrologers" in general and asking "your" astrologer, etc. A "third of the time the advice you get from your astrologer will be completely random". I'm sorry, but how do you know about my astrologer (hypothetical here) based on that? Are you assuming my astrologer uses charts by Danish astrologers? How odd.

I couldn't care less how he sampled them, I've already explained why. And Claus has told you, numerous times that he was not referring to astrologers in general. Yet you persist in claiming that is what he meant. You are just lying - the interesting question is why? Why do you claim to know what Claus meant when Claus himself denies that is what he meant? Why? Come on, let's have a straight answer for a change - what do you gain by putting words into the mouth of others?

There is an obvious implication that if "your" astrologer uses those charts that he will be wrong for the reasons stated. It's colloquial use of the language. Are you seriously going to argue against all colloquial expressions on the grounds that they are pedantically misleading? And why on earth would I assume that "your" astrologer would use Danish charts? Who said that the charts in question were Danish or from Danish astrologers? I'm not going to let you wriggle out of that one - please give me a specific answer as to why I should assume the charts to be Danish?

Originally posted by jzs
The method of sampling determines if inference is valid or not.

It does not if the "sample" by definition is the entire population. No more meaningless assertions, prove me wrong. You do understand that you are conflating two different populations here, don't you?

Originally posted by jzs
No, let's look at what they do say, since that is very important here. Page 5 of this .pdf file http://osu.orst.edu/instruct/st511/schafer/displays_2nd_ed/overheads1_8.PDF addresses this.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is only one procedure that must be dogmatically followed for all possible cases? That doesn't apply here at all. It is in relation to inferences about a population based on samples from that same population. It is totally irrelevent in this case. Claus did not sample a subset of astrologers to make an inference about astrologers. Nor did he sample a subset of charts to draw an inference about charts. He sampled a few specific charts to make an inference about astrologers who use those charts. I am frankly amazed that someone who claims to work in statistics is blind to the fact that there are two independent populations in this instance. An inference about one population is made from a sampling of a different population (charts and astrologers who use them) - and the second population is wholly and totally defined by the first population after the samples are taken. Sheesh! This is elementary!

Originally posted by jzs
I'm hardpressed to understand what that meant.

Obviously! I've explained it again above, hopefully in terms simple enough so that even a statistician may understand it! :)

Originally posted by jzs
Let's get some things straight:

a) Those exact 7 charts, or

b) similar astrological charts- not those specific ones?


If a), the article wording is a bid odd, talking about astrologers in general, saying astrologers (again, addressing all of them) disagree more than they agree, and talking about asking your astrologer. Why would my astrologer (again, hypothetical) in the USA, use a Danish chart? Why would a person in China why would their astrologer be using those charts? ie. he was mistaken to speak of astrologers in general; in fact, the article was misleading. The article should refer to the specific sample when presenting his conclusions.

If b), no, the inference is not valid. Because the 7 charts were not sampled randomly, we have no way of knowing if they are representative or not.

The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts. I agree that Claus has switched context apparently referring to a wider group of astrologers in other contexts, yes, that could have been clearer. Bad Claus. Naughty, naughty Claus, don't do it again! However, there is nothing there that would indicate that the specific conclusion in relation to the specific charts should be inferred to all astrologers, if anything I read it as an example in support of the more general statements. One assumes that the reader will apply at least a modicum of common sense - maybe an unjustified assumption in some cases of course... And I don't see that the other more general statements are particularly questionable - you only have to look at the horoscopes in a selection of daily newspapers to determine that astrologers in general disagree more often than they agree.

And once again, what makes you say they are Danish charts? Three of the charts came from a Danish book. Of those, two of the authors have Scandinavian sounding names. Which does not indicate that they could not possibly be say Chinese authors of Swedish descent for example. And where did those authors obtain those charts? Is it possible that a Chinese author of Swedish descent possibly copied a chart from elsewhere that had been authored by a Nigerian gentleman of Australian descent? :) The simple fact of the matter is that you don't know but once again, as usual, you jump to conclusions. *I* don't know how generally these specific charts are used, and in any event it is completely irrelevent if the inference is only to the astrologers who use those charts.

Originally posted by jzs
It most certainly does if we are talking about b). If a), then the article is very misleading by not referring to the specific sample when presenting the conclusions.

I agree. It is the method of sampling here that is important. Go ask him... just how did he sample? Ask for specific details.

Already answered at length elsewhere.

Originally posted by jzs
More ad hominem.

How is that ad-hominem? Please explain it to me, don't just trot out the words. Ad-hominem is "answering to the person not the issue in debate". Where were we debating your memory? I ask if you have a memory problem because you ask me to repeat something which I have quoted at length and which you, yourself said only a couple of posts before. Why do you need to keep asking the same questions? I can only think of two immediate reasons:

a) You have a memory problem
b) You are deliberately trying to be irritating and avoid answering questions by contrived "innocence", i.e. "Did I make a claim? Really? I don't remember" - when it is perfectly clear to anyone of even marginal intelligence that that is precisely what you did.

I don't want to attack you if you genuinely have some medical reason why you appear to forget what you said from one message to the next. Is that ad-hom? Of course, if you are simply trying to be dishonest and irritating then don't be surprised if someone tells you where to stick yourself. And please don't come the innocent here. You are a persistently uncivil poster, you stalk people, you accuse, you lie, you evade, duck and dodge. If you think you're fooling anyone, you're very much mistaken.

Originally posted by jzs
Same strawman.

Same strawman again.

I suggest you go find out what the terms actually mean before you liberally throw them around.

Originally posted by jzs
Testimony, and you admit it is testimony, is not evidence. So there we are, you still have no evidence for an adult truly believing the moon is made out of green cheese, and my default position is still the default position.

Yes it's testimony. But are you sure that testimony is never evidence? Sometimes testimony is the only evidence possible - such as in this case. If you maintain that it is not the only evidence possible (as to a person's beliefs) then please feel free to demonstrate the alternative - without claiming paranormal powers please.

If testimony is never evidence then I suppose you could go rob a bank and walk away with impunity because no court would ever accept the testimony of witnesses as evidence against you, would it? Care to try it? :D

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Neither description seems quite right, Dr Woo... or perhaps "lays doubt to all" is ambiguous... I don't seriously doubt that the world is round: I believe it because this notion stands up to doubt, questioning, demands for evidence; because it survives sceptical inquiry.



Sir, it depends on subjective reasoning. Always.

You don't doubt that the world is round, Dr. Or do you consider that, based on what you believe, the world appears to be 'round'?

There is the Phyrroian.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. Unfortunately, you don't say how to tell the difference between real skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

So I looked it up. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53152)

And it appears that "pseudoskeptic" is the word that a believer applies to anyone who doesn't believe what he believes --- not because this refutes the arguments of the skeptic, nor because it substantiates the arguments of the believer, but frankly because some people --- we've seen a few lately --- really do believe that this sort of whiny psychobabble (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52384) is a substitute for argument.

Instead of answering honest doubters requesting evidence, the believer merely has to proclaim that their doubt is not honest and to refuse to supply them with the evidence they ask for on the grounds that they would "refuse to accept it", which, if you have a belief entirely unsubstatiated by real evidence, is a great way to get off the hook when you're asked for it. He can then brag about how "open minded " he is.

By this process of lunatic fantasy, the believer can substitute a theory showing that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, dogmatic, etc for the production of evidence which most people would find convincing --- which must be a great relief to him; and it is also a fantasy of personal superiority --- which must also be pleasant for him.

The downside of substituting this fantasy for real debate is that to call a skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" doesn't answer a single one of his arguments --- it's an empty, worthless ad hominem. But it pleases little minds.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Or do you consider that, based on what you believe, the world appears to be 'round'? I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

[The Odd Emperor]

quote:Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

I take your point however, most people who understand rules and evidence or comprehend scientific philosophy tend not to be closed minded.




Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Is this a joke? You either jest or are naive.


Hopefully I have more choices than those two?

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.

This is simply an opinion based on many years of working around people in various science and engineering capacities. I mean; I might have fallen off the turnip truck yesterday but, I never liked turnips in the first place.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

If I were a complete wag I would say the world is something of an oblate spheroid. :D

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
If I were a complete wag I would say the world is something of an oblate spheroid. :D

Ah, but that rather depends on one's frame of reference. For someone moving fast enough it may appear to be distinctly like a pancake.

Thus we have to make allowances for the good doctor. His mind races at such a prodigious rate that he is in a frame of reference of his own...! :D

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

I do not know for sure, being a sceptic. ;)

It does appear to be the case that gravity/matter curves space, and the case for a theoretical 'flat earth' growing stronger the more we learn about the effect of matter/gravity on space and time.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Hopefully I have more choices than those two?

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.


Read some Kuhn.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Read some Kuhn.

How about you just learn to read, period, before making book recommendations?

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Unfortunately, you don't say how to tell the difference between real skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

So I looked it up. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53152)

And it appears that "pseudoskeptic" is the word that a believer applies to anyone who doesn't believe what he believes --- not because this refutes the arguments of the skeptic, nor because it substantiates the arguments of the believer, but frankly because some people --- we've seen a few lately --- really do believe that this sort of whiny psychobabble (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52384) is a substitute for argument.

Instead of answering honest doubters requesting evidence, the believer merely has to proclaim that their doubt is not honest and to refuse to supply them with the evidence they ask for on the grounds that they would "refuse to accept it", which, if you have a belief entirely unsubstatiated by real evidence, is a great way to get off the hook when you're asked for it. He can then brag about how "open minded " he is.

By this process of lunatic fantasy, the believer can substitute a theory showing that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, dogmatic, etc for the production of evidence which most people would find convincing --- which must be a great relief to him; and it is also a fantasy of personal superiority --- which must also be pleasant for him.

The downside of substituting this fantasy for real debate is that to call a skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" doesn't answer a single one of his arguments --- it's an empty, worthless ad hominem. But it pleases little minds.

That does say a rather lot about your own use of the 'ad hominem' "whiny psychobabble", Dr! At least 'pseudo skeptic' has a defined basis (Truzzi) rather than the subjective term you used above. It's use, Dr, defeats your argument. and enhances Truzzi's :(

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DrWoo
...It's use...,
"It is use", then, Dr?
Jest checken.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
The point behind that example was:

"Some adults believe patently absurd things with all sincerity."


Certainly. Just none of them believe in the moon being made of green cheese. The point is, why use a silly dramatic false example? Just use a real example, like flat earth. I'd have no arguments with that.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.






There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.

Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Why can't it possibly support my case?


It is not actual evidence, it is testimony.


Similarly I could have related a story about a mentally retarded adult that I know who believes ridiculous things (he believes that cows jump over the moon!)


You could, but it wouldn't be evidence. It would be testimony.


I know from my own experience that you are wrong.


All you'd have to do is show some evidence, not stories.


Almost anyone can easily see that your claim to omniscience


Strawman.


but you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.


Ad hom.


Outright dishonesty.


Ad hom.


I repeat, please tell me how anyone can provide evidence of what someone truly believes without asking them what they believe?
[/quite]

Oh, you can ask them, and that is evidence, but how am I supposed to know the response of your child or or an adult who claims to truly believe the moon is made of green cheese? Do you have their testimony on tape? On paper in the form of a survey? What? Do you expect or demand people to believe your story as actual evidence? You only have your stories, and that is not sufficient.

[quote]
you are completely intellectually dishonest


Ad hom.


it is possible for someone to know simply because they believe themselves to be omniscient.


Strawman.


on you to prove how you can know what all people, ever, in the history of the universe believe/believed.


Strawman.


That, again, is intellectual dishonesty.


Ad hom.


but your dishonesty is plain for all to see.


Ad hom.


, you are sloppy, you jump to conclusions without properly considering the evidence.


Ad hom.

Just show some evidence of adults who believe moon green cheese etc.. You keep pontificating here, asking questions. Just show the evidence of what I am requesting. You haven't.


More dishonesty


Ad hom.


you[/i] to provide evidence for your claim to know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe


Strawman.


outright dishonesty on your part.


Ad hom.


I do not expect you to take my word that my child believed it.


Exactly! So show some actual evidence so we don't have to take your stories as gospel. Can you, or would you like to ask more questions to dodge?


or are you not, going to show evidence that indicates that it is possible for you to know the actions and beliefs of [i]all people, ever, in the history of the universe?


Strawman.


Why should I? It's of no interest to me.


You ask many, many questions about it and it is of no interest? If you are a skeptic not a scoffer, you will ask him and find out how he sampled. Please, do it.


It's you I'm calling out.


I have plants that are more intimidating.


Since that is all we know, then what is the basis for your numerous accusations about poor sampling etc?


I repeat: ask Claus how he sampled. Please, just do it and see.


like the recent incident where you stalked jj implying he had made a mathematical error when in fact the mathematical error was yours.


"stalked", please, don't be as emotional as jj.

I admitted my mathematical error. JJ also admitted his error (trying to take an inner product of vectors of unequal length). So what is the problem?


You have claimed that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe[/i


Strawman.


The number is irrelevent? Are you kidding?


For inference, the method of sampling is important, not the numbers. If the samples weren't random, how do you know your sample is representative of the population? You have yet to answer this without constructing non real-world scenarios.


So if Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2, makes no difference to whether Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2 million?


We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.


And you claim to know something about statistics? Sheesh!


Ad hom and strawman.


As for the details of the study, Claus gave all the detail that was required to support the inference he made.


Ask him specifically how he sampled. Just do it, you'll see..


Or do you expect Claus to somehow eliminate global stupidity?


Ad hom.


Listen, if you sample an [b][i]entire population, then any (reasonable) inference you draw from that sample is valid for that population.


We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.


It makes no difference if you sample randomly or not if you sample the entire population. And that is the case here.


Where is your evidence that the charts he got constitute the entire population of sun sign charts?!!!???!???


Some charts were obtained.


No, you said these sampled charts are all the charts, period. You just said that above, now you change your story. Which is it? Do those 7 charts constitute a sample or the entire population of sun sign charts in the world?


The population in question is the population of astrologers who use those charts.


AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?


Because, as I asked you before, would it be wrong to infer to a population of 8 from a convenience sample of 7 for example?


We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life. Are YOU seriously claiming that there are only 8 such sun-sign charts in the world? Is that all your argument boils down to?


You claimed that no-one, ever, in the history of the universe had believed that etc.


Strawman.


Lying about it doesn't do you any credit.


Ad hom.


I couldn't care less how he sampled them,


And that is why you are behaving like a scoffer and not a skeptic. You don't care. You don't want to play by the standard rules of science or, in this case, of statistical reasoning. You don't care about the method of sampling, even though that is the central issue.


You are just lying -


Ad hom.


Who said that the charts in question were Danish or from Danish astrologers? I'm not going to let you wriggle out of that one - please give me a specific answer as to why I should assume the charts to be Danish?


If you read the article you would see some of the names. You could then search for those names. If you had read the article, and if you have done some work, and not just scoffed, that is.


It does not if the "sample" by definition is the entire population.


Again, present your evidence that there are only 7 sun-sign charts in the world. You have yet to do this, and your entire argument hinges on this claim.


He sampled a few specific charts to make an inference about astrologers who use those charts.


But he talks about astrologers in general. How can he possibly know his sample was representative?


I am frankly amazed that someone who claims to work in statistics is blind to the fact that there are two independent populations in this instance.


Ad hom and strawman.


Sheesh! This is elementary!


Ad hom.


Obviously! I've explained it again above, hopefully in terms simple enough so that even a statistician may understand it! :)


Ad hom.


I agree that Claus has switched context apparently referring to a wider group of astrologers in other contexts, yes, that could have been clearer.


And there you go. "apparently referring to a wider group of astrologer" means he made inference to some larger population, when it wasn't warranted, as I've been saying all along.


you only have to look at the horoscopes in a selection of daily newspapers to determine that astrologers in general disagree more often than they agree.


No, you don't 'only have to look', you have to do some analysis of the actual data.


And once again, what makes you say they are Danish charts?


Strawman. I didn't say all of them were. See above.


Is it possible that a Chinese author of Swedish descent possibly copied a chart from elsewhere that had been authored by a Nigerian gentleman of Australian descent?


Strawman.


a) You have a memory problem
b) You are deliberately trying to be irritating and avoid


Ad hominems.


You are a persistently uncivil poster, you stalk people, you accuse, you lie, you evade, duck and dodge


Ad hom.


without claiming paranormal powers please.


Strawman.

If we take away the strawmen and ad homs, and unanswered claims, your post is pretty short.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by Open Mind

There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.

Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html


Which in no way suggests that my opinion is unfounded. Truzzi is simply pointing out that scientists are human. However, any dogmatic pursuit of an idea is by (my) definition *not* science.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DrWoo

Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread and, to be brutally honest, those examples are an insult to skepticism.


Who?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
It’s very difficult to prove that a person is a closed minded skeptic, open minded or really anything else. We can makes some determination if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded.


Except that it doesn't appear that difficult -- certainly, the woo-ocrats have no difficulty "recognizing" that a person is closed minded by the second or third post from that person. Ignorant Ian, for example, has no problem "identifying" that the MAJORITY of skeptics are closed-minded, despite the fact that he has not been able to identify a single one by name as being closed-minded (and he clings to the refuted out-of-context Susan Blake quote as a lifeline, in the hopes that we will ignore the
refutations when he refers to it a third or a fourth time).

Similarly, "DrWoo" posted that "it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread" -- but of course didn't name names or cite examples. I read the thread. I don't see those examples. Perhaps I'm missing something -- or more likely those examples don't exist. And that's no an a priori judgement; that's an experimental finding.

Why is it only difficult to demonstrate -- not prove, a mere demonstration will suffice -- that a person is a closed-minded skeptic only when one is asked for evidence? Could it possibly be that such a "closed-minded skeptic" is a woo myth, and there is no more evidence for it than for astrological validity?

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Except that it doesn't appear that difficult -- certainly, the woo-ocrats have no difficulty "recognizing" that a person is closed minded by the second or third post from that person. Ignorant Ian, for example, has no problem "identifying" that the MAJORITY of skeptics are closed-minded, despite the fact that he has not been able to identify a single one by name as being closed-minded (and he clings to the refuted out-of-context Susan Blake quote as a lifeline, in the hopes that we will ignore the
refutations when he refers to it a third or a fourth time).

Similarly, "DrWoo" posted that "it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread" -- but of course didn't name names or cite examples. I read the thread. I don't see those examples. Perhaps I'm missing something -- or more likely those examples don't exist. And that's no an a priori judgement; that's an experimental finding.

Why is it only difficult to demonstrate -- not prove, a mere demonstration will suffice -- that a person is a closed-minded skeptic only when one is asked for evidence? Could it possibly be that such a "closed-minded skeptic" is a woo myth, and there is no more evidence for it than for astrological validity?

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

Dr K, using the measure of Truzzi, are you really claiming that pseudo-skepticism or closed-mindedness has not been evidenced in this thread? If so, I am sceptical of such claims.

[DrWoo]

Dr K, I don't think naming names is helpful here.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Dr K, I don't think naming names is helpful here.
Not helpful or not possible?

[DrWoo]

Certainly possible. I suspect you already know that!

It is just not helpful in respect of starting flame wars.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Certainly possible. I suspect you already know that!

It is just not helpful in respect of starting flame wars.

No, I don't know that. It could be a null class as far as I can see.

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.

Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.

Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.

Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

You'd first have to show that the experiements you refer to have been debunked. Which experiments are you referring to and could you provide the corresponding papers which unequivicably debunk those said experiments? Thanks in advance.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DrWoo
You'd first have to show that the experiements you refer to have been debunked. Which experiments are you referring to and could you provide the corresponding papers which unequivicably debunk those said experiments? Thanks in advance.

Deceptive attempt to move the goalposts and to shift the burden of proof noted. It's not enough to spot flaws in a paper on my own, but I need cite other published work refuting it.

But I'll sort of play along for the moment:

Blatant methodological mistreatment (data mining) in the Global Consciousness Project, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant research misconduct in Dr. Schwartz's lab, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant failure of astrology to produce accurate predictions, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant failure of psi to stand up to controlled analysis, as documented by PEAR (and the appropriate thread).
Blatant history of attempted fraud by major "psi" workers, as exemplified by Uri and John (and documented on the appropriate thread).

Since this isn't a court of law, I'm also allowed to notice your inability inability to name an un-debunked experiment that shows psi abilities.

Based on this wide-ranging sample, I submit that there is no evidence suggesting that psi effects need to be explained. (Beyond the explanations already given of incompetence, research incompetence, and outright fraud.) If you want to suggest that there are any psi experiments that have not been debunked, you are welcome to introduce them into evidence.

(N.b. Again, this isn't an a priori judgement of impossibility; it's an inference from an admittedly small sample, based on the preponderance of the evidence.)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Dr K, using the measure of Truzzi, are you really claiming that pseudo-skepticism or closed-mindedness has not been evidenced in this thread? If so, I am sceptical of such claims.

Using the measure of Truzzi? Are we talking about the same thing?

From the paper previously cited
The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers' approach. This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community towards anomaly claims. It is characterized by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else." Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second. Like the Fortean the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation. Whereas the Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they believe they have already them.

Let's see. "Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second."

Yes, I deny that such closed-mindedness has been displayed. Disprove me.

Again, from Truzzi:

The good scientist is one who is unprejudiced with an open mind, ready to embrace any new idea supported by facts.

There are no "facts" in evidence in this discussion. There are a number of experiments that have been alluded to -- whups, those experiments have mostly been alluded to by the skeptics, haven't they? Obviously, the skeptics are famililar with the experiments prior to the beginning of this discussion and had previously investigated them.

[Beth]

Originally posted by new drkitten

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset. Further, it seems pretty typical of that poster particular poster to me. There are others, but I've put those I consider to be the worst regarding that mindset, such as thaiboxerken on my ignore list. I generally don't find their posts worth the bother of reading.


Beth

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset. Er... but it's true. Everyone who has ever been through the preliminary stage of the challenge has either thought they had psychic powers when they didn't (a delusion) or were frauds (a tiny minority --- I can only remember hearing of one). This has invariably been the case. How did it become "indicative of a closed mindset" to say so? Would someone with an "open mindset" say that the $1,000,000 has been won by a highly talented psychic? Do tell.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset.

As Dr. A pointed out, this is an empirically validatable statement.
The set of people who have applied for the JREF challege is well-documented, in KRAMER's files if nowhere else. All of them have claimed powers, or they wouldn't have applied.

None of them (with the possible exception of the accepted and pending testing pool) have possessed the powers they claimed.

Either they believed they had powers that they did not -- which makes them delusional by definition, or they did not believe they had the powers that they claimed -- which makes them frauds.

The statement "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is a fact based upon observation. Unfortunately, it also supplies a basis for inductive reasoning -- using the JREF applicant pool as a sample, it's possible to make the inductive inference that "everyone who claims paranormal abilities is either delusional or a fraud." That's not an observation, but it's certainly a legitimate inductive generalization from a set of observations.

[DrWoo]

Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

This is irrelevant. The statement could be easily proven false with just one success. So far, no dice.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.





quote:
There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.

Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists :rolleyes:

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
It is not actual evidence, it is testimony.

You could, but it wouldn't be evidence. It would be testimony.

All you'd have to do is show some evidence, not stories.

Just show some evidence of adults who believe moon green cheese etc.. You keep pontificating here, asking questions. Just show the evidence of what I am requesting. You haven't.

I'm not going to repeat everything again, I've said what needed to be said. All I note is that you have offered no evidence of your claims and have persisted in trying to shift both the burden of proof and the goal posts instead of actually answering anything - as usual.

Originally posted by jzs
Exactly! So show some actual evidence so we don't have to take your stories as gospel. Can you, or would you like to ask more questions to dodge?

Ad hom, straw man, and outright lie. Nice try. I think it's perfectly evident to anyone precisely who has been dodging the questions here.

Originally posted by jzs
You ask many, many questions about it and it is of no interest? If you are a skeptic not a scoffer, you will ask him and find out how he sampled. Please, do it.

I have asked questions of you in relation to your numerous claims. I simply note that you will not answer them. You accuse, but you don't provide the evidence to back it up. Coward.

Originally posted by jzs
I have plants that are more intimidating.

Ah. Most interesting. Freudian slip perhaps? You see calling someone on bogus claims as an attempt to intimidate? Don't judge others by your own intentions please.

Originally posted by jzs
I repeat: ask Claus how he sampled. Please, just do it and see.

I don't care how Claus sampled. Sampling is not an issue here. Of course you want to make it an issue because you know full well that your claim has no substance unless you can make up a straw man by claiming that Claus did something he didn't.

Originally posted by jzs
"stalked", please, don't be as emotional as jj.

I admitted my mathematical error. JJ also admitted his error (trying to take an inner product of vectors of unequal length). So what is the problem?

Liar. JJ didn't make any error. He only used two different variables because the poster he was answering had used them, and he said quite clearly that m=n.

And there is nothing emotional in my comment, it is factual. You are a petty, vicious, stalker, apparently desperate to find anything, no matter how trivial, to get at or irritate certain posters, Claus, Hoyt and JJ being prime examples. Your posting history, both now as "jzs" and previously as "T'ai Chi" speaks for itself. But what is really both sad and funny at the same time is that usually you are completely wrong. You call people for "errors" only to discover, more often than not that the errors are yours. You can deny it all you like, but some of us notice these things.

And what is truly disgusting is that more often than not you don't have the honesty or integrity to admit when you're wrong. Instead you just lie - the above being a prime example.

Originally posted by jzs
For inference, the method of sampling is important, not the numbers. If the samples weren't random, how do you know your sample is representative of the population? You have yet to answer this without constructing non real-world scenarios.

Already answered numerous times.

Originally posted by jzs
We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

Ask him specifically how he sampled. Just do it, you'll see..

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

Where is your evidence that the charts he got constitute the entire population of sun sign charts?!!!???!???

I've explained in plenty of detail the elementary logic involved. I don't believe that you cannot understand it. I do believe you'll do anything to avoid acknowledging it because it shows you don't have a case.

Originally posted by jzs
No, you said these sampled charts are all the charts, period. You just said that above, now you change your story. Which is it? Do those 7 charts constitute a sample or the entire population of sun sign charts in the world?

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts. As you well know. Does it ever occur to you that anyone can simply read the thread above and see exactly what I said? Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Originally posted by jzs
AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?

Who do you think you are fooling liar? Anyone can see whether I dodged the question or not. Perhaps I "dodged it" like this in my last post:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts.

...or maybe I "dodged it" like this in my post before that one:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

...which, incidentally, you even quoted in your last reply...yeah, I really "dodged" that question didn't I? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jzs
We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life. Are YOU seriously claiming that there are only 8 such sun-sign charts in the world? Is that all your argument boils down to?

Straw man. See, I can do it too. The only difference is that *I* don't do it to avoid answering serious questions... ;)

Originally posted by jzs
And that is why you are behaving like a scoffer and not a skeptic. You don't care. You don't want to play by the standard rules of science or, in this case, of statistical reasoning. You don't care about the method of sampling, even though that is the central issue.

:dl:

You make accusations. You offer no evidence in support of them. You ignore anything you don't want to hear. You twist and distort what anybody says and pretend to "innocently" misinterpret anything you don't like. Do you honestly believe that anyone on here is stupid enough not to see it?

Originally posted by jzs
If you read the article you would see some of the names. You could then search for those names. If you had read the article, and if you have done some work, and not just scoffed, that is.

Yeah. So were they all Danish or not? :)

Originally posted by jzs
Again, present your evidence that there are only 7 sun-sign charts in the world. You have yet to do this, and your entire argument hinges on this claim.

Evidence that I said that first please - otherwise it's just a straw man again isn't it?

Originally posted by jzs
But he talks about astrologers in general. How can he possibly know his sample was representative?

Please show where he specifically and explicitly says that his sample was representative of astrologers in general.

Originally posted by jzs
And there you go. "apparently referring to a wider group of astrologer" means he made inference to some larger population, when it wasn't warranted, as I've been saying all along.

I repeat. "However, there is nothing there that would indicate that the specific conclusion in relation to the specific charts should be inferred to all astrologers, if anything I read it as an example in support of the more general statements."

Originally posted by jzs
No, you don't 'only have to look', you have to do some analysis of the actual data.

O.K. true. Do you think the data is likely to show they are substantially in agreement?

Originally posted by jzs
Strawman. I didn't say all of them were. See above.

So why did you focus exclusively on Danish astrologers/charts? Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by jzs
Are you assuming my astrologer uses charts by Danish astrologers?

Originally posted by jzs
Why would my astrologer (again, hypothetical) in the USA, use a Danish chart?

Originally posted by jzs
If we take away the strawmen and ad homs, and unanswered claims, your post is pretty short.

Let me rephrase that for you. If you duck out of answering most of the specific points and arguments I raised, my post is indeed pretty short.

Congratulations, you have excelled yourself here. Your post is one of the finest examples of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice I have ever witnessed.

Pathetic.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists :rolleyes:

Yeah. All scientists just have to be closed minded jerks.

So why pray tell do you (and just about every other woo) clutch so desperately at scientific ideas/theories/papers every time you are asked to justify your strange beliefs?

I mean, if scientists are so bad, then why on earth do you claim (for example) that quantum mechanics, a discipline invented by scientists is support for your theories? :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten


Blatant methodological mistreatment (data mining) in the Global Consciousness Project, as documented on the appropriate thread.



Please substantiate your assertion (I have no idea what thread you are talking about, nor am I interested in ploughing through a old thread. You can substantiate your assertion here).



Blatant failure of astrology to produce accurate predictions, as documented on the appropriate thread.



Please substantiate your assertion




Blatant failure of psi to stand up to controlled analysis, as documented by PEAR (and the appropriate thread).



Please substantiate your assertion.



Blatant history of attempted fraud by major "psi" workers, as exemplified by Uri and John (and documented on the appropriate thread).




Who the hell is John?? And the fact that "psi" workers commit fraud is uterly irrelevant to whether psi exists or not :rolleyes: I've explained this many many times before, but you're too stupid to understand anything.

Does the blatant history of fraud which has taken place in all other areas of science justify dismissing those fields too??

Anyway, again I say please substantiate your assertion.



Since this isn't a court of law, I'm also allowed to notice your inability inability to name an un-debunked experiment that shows psi abilities.



Scarcely any of them have been debunked. You Doc are a liar. You are a disgrace to your University and a disgrace to rational thinking (as are all sKeptics).



Based on this wide-ranging sample, I submit that there is no evidence suggesting that psi effects need to be explained.



What you submit doesn't alter cold facts. Maybe it can all be explained away, but certainly no-one has ever come near to doing so. In and of itself, the scientific evidence is very suggestive that anomalous cognition/perturbation exists, although of course the conclusion is not compelled. Making out it has all been debunked will only impress those that have made their mind up prior to any investigation; namely sKeptics.



(Beyond the explanations already given of incompetence, research incompetence, and outright fraud.)



My understanding that these charges are difficult to apply to parapsychologists themselves, although it might be more applicable to scientists from other fields who carry out parapsychological research (parapsychological research tends to be more rigorous than in other branches of science).


If you want to suggest that there are any psi experiments that have not been debunked, you are welcome to introduce them into evidence.


The vast majority of them. Please name any that have, and back up your allegations.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

Huh?

In what way is an accurate description of past events "prejudiced"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists


Pragmatist
Yeah. All scientists just have to be closed minded jerks.



Informal logical fallacy. The fact that scientists are not Spock like figures (as they try to portray themselves) does not entail that they are precisely the opposite of Spock like figures. It simply means they are no more open minded than the rest of the human race.



So why pray tell do you (and just about every other woo) clutch so desperately at scientific ideas/theories/papers every time you are asked to justify your strange beliefs?

I mean, if scientists are so bad, then why on earth do you claim (for example) that quantum mechanics, a discipline invented by scientists is support for your theories?

It wasn't invented by scientists. QM describes reality -- and extraordinarily accurately too. My arguments are against materialists and sKeptics, not against what science reveals about the world. Their beliefs are not justified by science, although they appear to erroneously believe they are.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Does the blatant history of fraud which has taken place in all other areas of science justify dismissing those fields too??


If it existed outside of your fevered dreams and wishful thinking, it would.

I can easily name three scientists who are demonstrably not frauds. Transistors, as discovered/invented by John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley in 1947, can be easily demonstrated to work. (I could actually name and demonstrate thousands of nonfraudulent scientists, but this would become a very long post).

Name three psi proponents who are demonstrably not frauds.

[Beth]

Originally posted by new drkitten
As Dr. A pointed out, this is an empirically validatable statement.
The set of people who have applied for the JREF challege is well-documented, in KRAMER's files if nowhere else. All of them have claimed powers, or they wouldn't have applied.

None of them (with the possible exception of the accepted and pending testing pool) have possessed the powers they claimed.

That group is a large percentage of all applicants. Relatively few applicants progress to actual testing. Therefore I do not consider it open-minded to make that assumption based on the facts available.

Either they believed they had powers that they did not -- which makes them delusional by definition, or they did not believe they had the powers that they claimed -- which makes them frauds.

To believe that only two such possibilities exist is close-minded. Someone could be mistaken without being delusional. They could have tested themselves, but their own tests were flawed in some way. Someone could apply without believing in their powers but rather in an attempt to attain help in testing. That doesn't make them a fraud if they are upfront about their reasons for applying. There is also the possibility that someone might possess the powers claimed and still fail the test. Even Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run every time he was up at bat. :)

The statement "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is a fact based upon observation.

I must disagree with you here. It is not a fact based on observation but an extrapolation based on apriori assumptions about applicants. That constitutes being closed-minded, not merely skeptical.

Beth

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson

I must disagree with you here. It is not a fact based on observation but an extrapolation based on apriori assumptions about applicants.


Really? As I pointed out, the set of applicants is a finite (small) set. Find me a counterexample, then.

Absent a counterexample, it's a fact based on observation.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Informal logical fallacy. The fact that scientists are not Spock like figures (as they try to portray themselves) does not entail that they are precisely the opposite of Spock like figures. It simply means they are no more open minded than the rest of the human race.

I was being sarcastic Ian...

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It wasn't invented by scientists. QM describes reality -- and extraordinarily accurately too. My arguments are against materialists and sKeptics, not against what science reveals about the world. Their beliefs are not justified by science, although they appear to erroneously believe they are.

Your argument that I addressed was against scientists.

Anyway, I'm much more interested to know exactly who invented quantum mechanics if it wasn't scientists? This should be good! :)

[Beth]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Really? As I pointed out, the set of applicants is a finite (small) set. Find me a counterexample, then.

Absent a counterexample, it's a fact based on observation.

I can provide myself as a counterexample. I applied primarily to obtain help in testing, specifically to get help in the form of observers since acting as both subject and observer makes my previous test results suspect. I am not a fraud since I made this fact clear to Kramer before I submitted my application. You must be familiar with my claim since you have commented on it previously.

Beth

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson

...snip...
To believe that only two such possibilities exist is close-minded. Someone could be mistaken without being delusional. They could have tested themselves, but their own tests were flawed in some way. Someone could apply without believing in their powers but rather in an attempt to attain help in testing. That doesn't make them a fraud if they are upfront about their reasons for applying. There is also the possibility that someone might possess the powers claimed and still fail the test. Even Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run every time he was up at bat. :)


...snip...


Don’t understand your objection to the use of “deluded� since all “deluded� means is to firmly believe in something that is untrue. Whether you’ve come to believe that something false is true (I’ll not be drawn into a “semantic argument� about “true� ;) ) by careful testing or sloppy testing makes no difference to whether you are deluded or not. If you believe in something that is untrue then you are deluded. So if someone can’t do something they think they can do they are deluded and therefore any one applying for the challenge who hasn’t been able to do what they said they could do was either deluded or made a fraudulent claim.

Is your objection because the word is quite often used as an insult?

[The Odd Emperor]

quote:
There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that *SOME* scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.


Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists :rolleyes:




I like how you pick a single statement (an incorrect one to boot) from a man that you probably don't agree with very much and hold it out to The Odd Emperor like it was carved by the finger of god while he dictated from a burning bush.

I would submit to you that some scientists do fit this description, many do not. I would further submit that being dogmatic and closed minded is *not* scientific. Those falling under this description are not truly engaged in science at all. Just like an aircraft pilot operating a car is not *piloting,* but he’s still a pilot.

Using the words of Marcello Truzzi this way (by the way) *is itself* dogmatic and closed minded.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Darat
Don’t understand your objection to the use of “deluded� since all “deluded� means is to firmly believe in something that is untrue. Whether you’ve come to believe that something false is true (I’ll not be drawn into a “semantic argument� about “true� ;) ) by careful testing or sloppy testing makes no difference to whether you are deluded or not. If you believe in something that is untrue then you are deluded. So if someone can’t do something they think they can do they are deluded and therefore any one applying for the challenge who hasn’t been able to do what they said they could do was either deluded or made a fraudulent claim.

Is your objection because the word is quite often used as an insult?

The words deluded and delusional are not exactly the same. One can be deluded (i.e. - believing something that is not true) without being delusional. Delusional implies a mental instability that simply being deluded does not.

Beth

[DrWoo]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Huh?

In what way is an accurate description of past events "prejudiced"?

Because it maintains the belief that the future is bound to be determined by a small number of applicants of an already controversial challenge. Misa's statement is proof of closed mindedness and prejudice. It pre-judges future applications.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DrWoo
Because it maintains the belief that the future is bound to be determined by a small number of applicants of an already controversial challenge. Misa's statement is proof of closed mindedness and prejudice. It pre-judges future applications.
No it isn't, no it isn't and no it doesn't.
Three wrongs don't make a right, even in binary.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
The words deluded and delusional are not exactly the same. One can be deluded (i.e. - believing something that is not true) without being delusional. Delusional implies a mental instability that simply being deluded does not.

Beth

I have to disagree since that is just one of the ways delusion can be used. Whilst delusion is often used in the sense of someone having a psychological instability that doesn’t mean someone can’t also use it to simply mean a false belief (since “delusion� is a synonym for “false belief�).

[Beth]

Originally posted by Darat
I have to disagree since that is just one of the ways delusion can be used. Whilst delusion is often used in the sense of someone having a psychological instability that doesn’t mean someone can’t also use it to simply mean a false belief (since “delusion� is a synonym for “false belief�).

Allright, you may disagree. However I think that the usage of "delusional" in the original quote was that of implying psychological instability of claimants, not that they merely hold a false belief.

Further, it's only one of 3 examples I gave of situations wherein a person might be something other than delusional or fraudulent and still be an applicant to the challenge. Thus even if your interpretation is correct, it does not negate the point I was making - that people do exist who are claiming the title of skeptic but are actually closed-minded, not skeptical.

Beth

[turtle]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Let's just stick with your answer then. You chose the mirage over the "ghost" option. You chose the SCIENTIFIC explanation over the PARANORMAL explanation.......wow, amazing. That's pretty inconsistent considering you prefer to accept a paranormal explanation for premonitions over a scientific explanation. The mirage answer was of course the right answer. Whether you like deserts or not is irrelevant.

No it's not. I hate the sand, and hot sun. Yeck. In my little world, it's quite relevant.

Both "disappearing" pools of water and "premonitions" have a scientific explanation, yet you only accept a scientific expalnation for one. Link for scientific explanation of deja-vu/premonitions:
http://niazi.com/Neurons/djv.htm
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000F0615-85C1-1CD9-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Great, except we're talking about ghosts, not premonitions, not deja-vu.

How is it YOUR belief system allows for one but not the other? In fact, the last time we discussed the cause for premonitions, you dismissed the scientific view without really understanding what it was. Yes I can provide the link to that thread if needed.

If you have the need to persist in believing I don't "really understand what it was" nothing I can do about it.

Whether you don't see many "ghosts of pools of water" in the desert is irrelevant as well, it's the believer's belief system that would allow for "ghosts" anywhere, and a ghost for anything. Why do reports of "ghost" sightings have a clothed ghost? Like a pool of water, clothes are inanimate, no soul, yet they appear along with the ghost.
Even trains can have a ghost according to some belief systems:
http://ncghosts.t35.com/train.htm

Sure. And? Re read my posts. Some of what we call "ghosts" could possibly be some sort of imprint, which would explain "ghost trains." Some theories suggest the energy that is the ghost manifests itself that way to us. Who knows?

Yes, I know, you don't want to play repeat theatre about your episodes of "premonitions". But I will say this, perhaps as a gesture good faith, can you post your previous writings for those premonitions you already discussed. You could scan them (only the relevant parts, of course) and then post them on the forum. I'm sure someone would help you out with the technical details, I know I could, if necessary.

Dude, do you want to discuss ghosts, premonitions, trains, green cheese, pools of water, or deja-vu? Which is it?

[thaiboxerken]

Until you can provide scientific evidence of ghosts, it's really nothing worth talking about.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by turtle
No it's not. I hate the sand, and hot sun. Yeck. In my little world, it's quite relevant.
Irrelevant, it's a hypothetical setting, turtle
Originally posted by turtle
Great, except we're talking about ghosts, not premonitions, not deja-vu.
I was inquiring as to your belief system and why it was inconsistent concerning paranormal and scientific explanations to events. Has nothing to do with green cheese, ghosts, psi, or any of that really. It has to do with YOUR belief system.
Originally posted by turtle
Sure. And? Re read my posts. Some of what we call "ghosts" could possibly be some sort of imprint, which would explain "ghost trains." Some theories suggest the energy that is the ghost manifests itself that way to us. Who knows?
What do you think it is? Could these "Ghost Trains" be actual ghosts, or unexplained "imprints". Or perhaps hallucinations, or sounds of some other train mispercieved by the listener?
Originally posted by turtle
Dude, do you want to discuss ghosts, premonitions, trains, green cheese, pools of water, or deja-vu? Which is it?
Dudette, I think it would be interesting to discuss the inconsistencies in your belief system, that's what I've been trying to do, you seem to be missing my point? Why do you have a paranormal explanation for some events such as ghosts, psi, but then a scientific explanation for something like a mirage? A mirage is not graspable, but is a scientific fact. A "ghost" is not graspable, but you rule out a scientific explanation.