Decidedly_Unsure

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 23 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Decidedly_Unsure

• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Rem and Abaddon
  
  Thanks for your well considered replies. I appreciate the references and hope to find the time to read more on this intereting subject, since I'm clearly without sufficient factual data to consider this much further I'll accept your well-researched viewpoints.
  
  BTW Abadddon, I just remembered, you said this:
  **************
  In all mass tests I have seen, there is no significant deviation from probability; no incidents of 5,000,000 people being asked to guess a 5-digit number and 1000 people getting it right (which would be a total violation of probability, a clear indication of unknown phenomena, and a media frenzy).
  **************
  
  In a sense you've admitted that many repeated occurences on the far edges of the statistical curve would imply something beyond natural ...er supernatural perhaps?
  Well I'd like to congratulate you as one of the first skeptics to admit (indirectly of course :-)) that if evolution did occur, then it was by supernatural means!!!
  
  I'm sure you see where i'm coming from. If you accept the infinitesmally small probaility that a complex organism such as the eye could ultimately evolve from a simple organic soup _and_ the infinitesmally small probability of males and females evolving matching organs so as to repeatedly procreate _and_ the infinitesmally small probability .........
  All this under natural law?
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Rem
  
  Do you know if any of these studies are published and available for public view?
  I'd really like to see how they do the math to dismiss all the claims.
  What is their sample size? I would think that meta-analysis, as you term it, would be more appropriate for these types of phenomena.
  
  To belabor the point even more. Let's say over a 24 hr period, subject X was able to make some unusual prediction or sighting ( eg see 3 green discss and 2 blue ones in a sealed box). They were not able to repeat this more than once over 100 tries in the 24 hr period. Consequently this may be deemed statistically insignifcant. OTOH if one considers 500 different experiments on persons _claiming to have psychic ability_ perhaps each 1 of them had 1 significant "sighting" over their experiment.
  I would then compare this to 500 experiments on people who have no claims whatsoever on psychic ability. See how many, if any at all, were able to have a "sighting" in the 24 hour period. Is this the type of analysis that's beeen done?
  
  Decidedly_Unsure
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Dolphman
  
  I read your post as well.
  What's interesting to me is the typical skeptic response from Abaddon as one possible explanation:
  *****
  People can absorb information from a variety of sources and later have that information re-emerge in some fashion, and be genuinely unaware they ever knew those things beforehand.
  *****
  And there may be a small statistical possibility that what he says may be applicable in your instance.
  What I wonder is, assuming that there are others in the world who have very similar experiences to yours what happens from a "scientific assessment" perspective.
  
  Do they more readily accept the small probability that you picked this stuff up somewhere unconciously in a natural way, than considering all of those who experience such things and ask a basic question:
  What is the probablity that _all_ these people "absorbed these abilities in some conventional way"
  IOW will they dismiss each phenomenon case by case because it more readily fits within their comfort framework.
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Abaddon Thanks for the link. It is really informative since i haven't read much on the formal methodology before this, esp in such a concise manner. I am no apologist for paranormal "beleivers" but i just am repulsed by the "just ain't possible" attitudes that seem so close-minded. I have grave dufficulty in one of the "tenets" or criteria viz: 1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Natural Law Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To me either this disqualifies the scientific methodology (as outlined) from analysing, proving or disproving paranormal phenomena. Since by definition it ( a priori ) discounts things that have not been repeatedly observed in nature. I'm having difficulty understanding what this other one means: 2. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Falsifiability Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and most scientific theories have some trouble with this criterion. Historically based theories such as evolution cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that it is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would critics of science have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who or what determines the validity of these tests. Doesn't hte above explanaton seem to be making a special case for the evolution theory? REM you said ************* Are you just speaking of generalities, or do you have specific examples? What type of paranormal experiences are you talking about? Fuzzy thinking will not help us learn anything. It's like saying X sees a cryptozoological creature in Europe today, Y sees several in India tomorrow. What cryptozoological creatures are we talking about? ************** Good questions. I'm making this up as i go along and i need to and will do a lot more reading on the topic, but I'm talking about basic observabble "phenomena" Eg John in Milwaukee says his daughter can _sometimes_ accurately describe objects and places she has never seen He's done it, say, 3 times. (Often the scientists initila reaction is:probably co-incidence or someone told him about this place or he saw it on TV and forgot etc etc) Ria in Brazil says she can "guess" what number is on a card in a sealed box. She gets maybe 6 out of 10 correctly in your "controlled" environment. Similarly Mark from Finland does the same thing. All these occurences happen with some probability that is higher than the statistical norm for "naturally observed" people. Going back to the questions of tesibility, repeatibility etc Each one of these occurences may be individually dismissed because they couldn't be repeated over and over again with significant statistical deviations. But does the scientist ever consider _A GROUP_ of these claimants as a whole? IOW to what extent does science discount each claim individually because each individual claimant couldn't demonstrate some paranormal phenomena sufficient no. of times to be deemed worthy of consideration. But if the viewpoint is changed to encompass the fact that, say, 5000 people have been able to demonstrate an extraordinary event even just once (eg. tell you what 5-digit no. is on a card in asealed box) would this not be the basis for the rational onlooker to say something abnormal (maybe paranormal) exists, even though we don't know what it is? Do scientists by trying to "isolate" the phenomena to an individual or even small observable groups destroy any chance of gettin to the truth of the matter? You're right it can come out a bit fuzzy, but hopefully i'll be able to sort it out in my mind a bit more clearly. Thanks for the interesting responses thus far.
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  *******
  Example : year "plonk" man says "I think there are little tiny creatures that we cannot see with our eyes and they could live inside us" - his friend says "don't be so stupid" then thousands of years later science discovers microscopic organisms.
  Sirona
  *******
  And Plonk man's friend mirrors the attitude of a number of modern day skeptics. If instead Plonk man's fried had said, "that's highly unlikely" or "do you have anything that we could use to verify or disprove?" , all that's good; but what a number of modern-day skeptics (including some on this board)do, is ridicule all possibilities. "A psychic force?? hahaa, you delusional idiot: no such thing could exist, there is a logical explanation (ie based on something we already know about!)"
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Yike! What happened to my formatting??
• 
  24

  skeptics and the paranormal

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.

  i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

  skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  The reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C5-2004040384%2C00.html was made in another thread. I?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity. Skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?. My question is: will any phenomena ever be able to meet such criteria? They ask for reproducible results, things that can be tested and reproduced under controlled conditions. All this sounds logical and has served us well. Important discoveries that have served us well have undergone this scrutiny. I?m sometimes confused as to what constitutes this scientific methodology, is it really complete? I?ll use 1 (perhaps far-fetched) analogy to illustrate the point: Long before microscopes were invented, some scientists and doctors like everyone else contracted not-so-common such diseases. Eg Rheumatic fever. By not-so-common I mean not everyone contracted them and usually not frequently. Did scientists/doctors say that these ailments/diseases were figments of the imagination of these poor souls? No! Even though it would be awhile before bacteria, microscopes and such things would be developed, unexplained diseases and science were able to co-exist. No such ?we can?t reproduce these conditions in a laboratory? nonsense was at work. So, has scientific method (un)evolved to a point of arrogance viz if I can?t explain the phenomenon or reproduce it under my controlled conditions, it can?t possibly exist? This is what they do with paranormal phenomena. X has an experience in Europe today, Y has several experiences in India tomorrow. They dismiss all these as random ?unexplained? things. Why not consider the countless experiences of all these people who experience paranormal activity as a whole? Why do u have to bring each of these people in a lab and say ?show me again and again? under my scrutiny so I can see it. Could you imagine if that approach was taken before bacteria and microscopes were discovered?
• 
  5

  Anyone from Caribbean or smaller nations?

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just curious.

  seems like almost all posters here are either from north america, australia or uk.

  are there are any others living on smaller or different rocks?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Just curious.

  Seems like almost all posters here are either from North America, Australia or UK.
  Are there are any others living on smaller or different rocks?
  If so, do you refrain from Id-ing yourself cus it's easier to be tracked from a small place?
• 
  9

  A call for "essays"

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  someone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.

  that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.

  assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  ========================================================================================================================================
  Preparing a written tool is powerful, and being creative in the way of getting it to the JWs attention I think is worth developing. I also note some posts raising the ethical issues involved such as the ethics of spamming them (even if done considering the person's best interest). What to say, how to say it, and how to deliver it, whom should deliver it, all need to be carefully considered (letting ethical principles also guide us). How can it's impact be maximised ethically? I see potential in the idea that is worth brainstorming.
  ========================================================================================================================================

  Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Nathan.
  Such a project, as you seem to suggest, would be most successful when based on a collaborative approach, based on exchange of ideas. I suspect that, because the vast majority of posters on this board have already left, there may not be that much interest. While I could attempt something on my own, it would be better to involve others if possible. Could you reccomend, perhaps another "JW" board where there may be others who might be interested? (Perhaps a board with more active JWs who already know the Truth)

  Farkel
  That was a fantastic reference. Reading material for weeks (if not months)!!!
  Of course you realise the stuff there may be a bit too weighty for the average Jdub having the first pangs of doubt. The logic in those essays and the excellent use of the JWs own references is just so damned good, it will scare them off. One would probably have to begin with some kind of hazy, fuzzy questions like:

  "Is it being spiritually weak to think about ...... ?
  Is it being spiritually weak to do ............... ?
  Howcum we were told we could do .. a few years ago but now it's .... or is it really ..... ??
  It's true the FDS are just imperfect men doing their best to do Jah's will but was it wrong for us to do --- when they said to do ---- but Jah said to do ..... in the bible? Would he be thinking we're following men and not him? We really just want what's best for Jah, ourselves and the FDS!! "

  etc etc

  Basically, it would be great to come up with stuff that can keep pushing the envelope just enough that if they stop reading, they would have ingested enough "cult-serum/poison?" to be prepared for a little research.

  I'm trying but I don't have the real mind of the typical fully-indoctrinated JW in that I wasn't born into a JW family and I fing there alarm bells go off a lot faster than mine would have before I discovered the real "truth "!

  Hope to get some more feedback.
• 
  9

  A call for "essays"

  by Decidedly_Unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  someone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.

  that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.

  assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Decidedly_Unsure

  Hmmm

  =========================================================================
  an email or letter that starts off innocently, then sneaks in a minor doctrinal issue will remind JWs too much of a Theocratic Ministry School talk or Service Meeting demonstration.
  =========================================================================
  what if the script purported to help them think about difficult situations to overcome in the ministry? A la :

  I met someone in field service who refused to take the mags. She said that her grandmother had some Awake magazines that said how getting a transplant was wrong because it was like being a cannibal, and how Aluminium cookware is killing millions of people in the world. She said that Jehovahs witnesses have to believe every thing their leaders tell them because theyre not to question any teachings from the top? She also said that people from other religions, leave to join the JWs because the JWs literature points out flaws in their churches. But if other churches or independent people publish things about JW flaws we cant read it.
  I said of course we could! Then she asked me if I would like to read an independent study about what we do and teach. I guess I hesitated before I said no. But then it got me thinking, since we have the truth, should we be afraid to hear what other people (even opposers ) say? .
  Am I being spiritually weak? What would you have done? Etc etc

  Any chance of stuff like this working? What's your opinion?