Posts by skeptic2

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded".

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

Beardo, I am interested to know what you think it is you saw, and how you arrived at that conclusion, so I can see where my approach would differ.

And while we are in the mood of recommending things, I will recommend this book:

Title: Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking
Author: Thomas E. Kida
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591024080

Synopsis:

Mistake #1: We prefer stories to statistics. Even a bad story is preferred over great statistics, and this shouldn’t be surprising. We’re social animals, so whatever seems to connect us to others will have a bigger impact than cold, impersonal numbers. This leads us to making decisions based upon a single story which may not be representative of larger trends while ignoring the statistics that tell us about those trends.

Mistake #2: We seek to confirm, not to question, our ideas. Everyone wants to be right and no one wants to be wrong. This may be the primary driving force behind the fact that when people look at neutral evidence before them, they almost invariably focus on what seems to confirm what they already believe while ignoring what might count against their beliefs.

Mistake #3: We rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence in shaping events. Odds are that any randomly chosen person has no idea how odds, chance, and randomness affect their lives. People think that unlikely events are very likely while likely events are very unlikely. For example, people forget how large the numbers around them are — an event with a million to one odds against it will happen given a million tries. In New York City alone, this means that several such events could happen every day.

Mistake #4: We sometimes misperceive the world around us. We simply don’t perceive things happening in our vicinity as accurately as we think or might like. We see things that aren’t really there and we fail to see things that are. Even worse, our level of confidence in what we have perceived is no indication of just how likely we are to be right.

Mistake #5: We tend to oversimplify our thinking. Reality is a whole lot more complicated than we realize. Indeed, it’s more complicated than we can deal with — every analysis we make of what goes on must eliminate lots of factors. If we don’t simplify, we’d never get anywhere in our thinking; unfortunately, we often simplify too much and thus miss things we need to take into account.

Mistake #6: Our memories are often inaccurate. To be fair, this isn’t a mistake because we can’t help the fact that our memories are unreliable. The real mistake is in not realizing this, not understanding the ways in which our memories can go wrong, and then failing to do what we can to make up for this fact.

Well worth reading. I also recommend:

Title: The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Author: Carl Sagain

ISBN: 0345409469

Synopsis:

Carl Sagan muses on the current state of scientific thought, which offers him marvelous opportunities to entertain us with his own childhood experiences, the newspaper morgues, UFO stories, and the assorted flotsam and jetsam of pseudoscience. Along the way he debunks alien abduction, faith-healing, and channeling; refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality, and provides a "baloney detection kit" for thinking through political, social, religious, and other issues.

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

Hi LittleToe. believe me I am not taking anything personally. I just cannot help but ask questions when I think I see logical inconsistencies or inconsistent arguments, the thought processes of others have always interested me.

LittleToe said: Part of the problem here is the use of terminology.

Yes, this is always an issue.

While I have a belief in certain aspects of what some call the supernatural I am also acutely aware that there is no scientific evidence to support the notion. This is also the case with UFO sightings, wherein folks are convinced of what they saw but have no proof other than their own subjective experience, even where there's a corrulation between individuals. Likewise, I beleive in a Deity due to my own personal experiences, but regardless od how compelling my explanations I can't prove it to another individual.

I wonder, if you cannot prove it to another individual, how you have proved it to yourself? This seems to imply that your standard of evidence for the phenomena you are referring is lower than that of other people? If I cannot prove something to other people (putting aside mundane explanations such as I lost the evidence), then I hold a similar disbelief for it myself.

Basically it's not worth getting upset over. Your friends saw what they saw and you're all convinced of your interpretation of it. Let the scientists either catch up, ignore, or disprove it.

The burden is not on all non-claimants to disprove a claim, but on the claimant to prove it.

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

LittleToe said:

Skeptic2:
And yet I offered it to you as a specific piece of evidence pertaining to my own understanding of such concepts, which I (not you) presented. I guess you could take that on faith, accepting that I might have half a clue as to what I'm talking about, else you could remain skeptical to the end. Do you need to see a copy of my transcript before you'd believe that I've taken a course in Psychology, too? Even that wouldn't tell you how much, or what topics, I comprehend. Would you need to personally conduct a scientific experiment to determine and accept my level of competency?

No, I was making a simple point that the logic implied in your initial bullet-pointed list, and the second comment you make, are non-sequiturs. That's it. That simple. I thought you would want to know that, because, until I read about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in an issue of Skeptical Inquirer, I believed that the kind of argument you made was not a non-sequitur, i.e. that someone who possesses the ability to think critically cannot fail to employ the ability. I just thought it was an interesting thing to point out.

People make statements every day, that you can either accept or disbelieve, especially on a webboard. How far do you go down the hole, Alice, before you accept that something can be reasonably compelling without iron-fast evidence? Do you need to personally know the person, or be confident of the judgement of a mutual acquaintence, before you would accept it?

So finally we get around to my point, which I made kind of circuitously. Most people have a level at which they become convinced, even in the absence of empirical evidence. That which is presented might be an absolute objective fact, but each will determine at which point they accept their subjective interpretation of the evidence presented to them.

Even rational people have to work in such a manner. In your own case, if the example you've presented of your own reasoning in this thread is consistent to the way you act in everyday life, second guessing everything your senses present to you must be a pretty debilitating way of proceeding

Thats exactly where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in.

For example, I'm putting the milk back in the fridge, and as I do so I catch a fleeting sight of the use-by date on it and notice it is out of date. By the time I have realised this it is in the fridge, out of sight. Now the probability of it being out of date is quite high. Milk goes out of date all the time, it's to be expected. Therefore the evidence for it being out of date does not need to be particularly compellling in order for me to assume that the milk is indeed out of date. So without taking another look, I go with the assumption it is out of date, and plan to buy some more later that day.

Now another example, I get up in the night to go to the bathroom and see a man standing at the foot of my bed. In the blink of an eye he disappears, a ghost! The probability that there was an indeed a ghost standing at the end of my bed is extremely low. It is more likely for instance that I experienced a hypnagogic hallucination. In order for me to accept that there was a ghost, the probability that I did not really see a ghost in this case needs to be less than the probability of ghosts in general. To put it more cogently, the possibility of the evidence of a miracle being wrong has to be more miraculous than the miracle itself, in order for us to accept the miracle. Because ghosts are so unlikely, merely seeing one does not provide compelling enough evidence for their existence, because there are many other explanations that are more likely and therefore suit our far from compelling evidence of having 'seen it'.

beardo said:

@ Skeptic2

What about feeling something tangible as well as seeing something - witnessed and experienced by more than one person on odd occasions?

That is the kind of event I'm talking about. Heat changes, movement of air, electric devices switching on and off, things moving involuntarily and actual apparitions?

Not some whacked out mushroom trip.

3 of my mates (the one autistic - just to ease the mind of the guys here who believe that people who witness odd events are clearly unbalanced one way or the other) saw a UFO three weeks ago. Also witnessed by other folk in the area. Three unsual lights suspended in midair, floating above a house, without a perceivable sound. Too low to be a plane or copter and no apparent mass beyond the orbs of light. This object has also been seen down south in the UK and after speaking to some guys on another forum, stateside as well. I'm not saying what it is or isn't, but I have enough faith in my mates to believe the tale I was told. No clear explanation. When reported on a local radio station, the DJ " took the piss " .... a typical close-minded response by one of the secular atheist "sheeple" ...

This cold rational response to reality has its limits.

Yes it does have it's limits, it's designed to. Without a skeptical approach we are free floating in an infinite number of hypotheses, with no guide as to what might be truthful.

What you describe sounds very interesting, but right now for everyone but you and your friends it is only a story. It is anecdotal evidence, and unfortunately "anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all".

But were you to have some kind of corroborating data, photos, video, etc. then the matter could be investigated. On the basis of your description it could be anything from ball lightning to misperceiving airplane foglights to UFOs, so more evidence is needed to begin to narrow down the possibilities.

A skeptical approach does not preclude amazing and wonderful things happening in the world, it merely assists us to avoid being deceived and to avoid deceiving ourselves.

90

what would be "proof" of God's existance to someone?

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

jw
friends

short of god coming down herself to say "howdy y'all!

" what would it take to make you a believer in god?.

not necessarily the god of the bible or any religion in particular, just a supreme deity of some sort, call it ra, thor or chaos.

skeptic2

heathen said:

Many people see ghosts or spirits , there's quite a bit of evidence ,even if you watch ghost hunters where they actually film strange occurances , not saying they are above faking it but think it a good chance it's real because their claim is to first find a logical exsplanation then look at the evidence from an angle of spirit activity . I even mentioned my experiences to the j-dubby's and got the old bums rush like I was out of my mind or something . Fine then don't believe but you don't have to insult people that do .....

The simplest explanation is that it is all bunk and nonsense, from peopling fooling themselves to outright hoaxes. To move to a less simple explanation like 'spirit activity' you need to provide evidence that cannot be explained by the simpler hypothesis. No-one has ever provided such evidence that I have seen. The evidence has to be incontrovertibly not explainable by non-paranormal factors.

[What kind of proof do you need to believe in mental telepathy? ]

free2beme said:

Seen, done and do proof of this often, convinced.

Please pass Go, please collect your million dollars from Mr. Randi.

I get tired of this non-sense. This is not a personal attack. I am taking what you said and telling you the most likely explanation for it. The most likely explanations are that you are either a) an out-and-out liar or b) have mental health issues or c) do not understand what the word telepathy means.

Of course you can prove me wrong by providing proof of your telepathic powers (or looking it up in a dictionary and letting us know if you misunderstood it). Let me predict that you won't.

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

Nope. I'm quite well aware of the difference between the subjective and the objective. Did you miss that I work in Mental Health Services??

It seems unlikely that every person who work in a Mental Health Services department understands the difference between subjective and objective.

Therefore the premise (working in Mental Health Services) does not justify what I assume to be your implied conclusion (that you must therefore know the difference between the subjective and the objective).

So this seems to be another non-sequitur (where the premise does not justify the conclusion), almost exactly the same as the one I pointed out earlier?

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

I couldn't agree more, and I suspect that you would agree that you don't consistently apply such methods yourself?

I assume on the balance of probability that I don't, but being aware of the possibility that I don't probably reduces the chance of it occurring. Should anyone point out that I haven't, I pride myself on taking a step back and reconsidering.

I know fine well what I've experienced in life. While my interpretation of such things might be brought into question you cannot contest the experiences themselves as you weren't there. Actually you also can't contest them, period, because I refuse to post them on a webboard.

I'm not sure how this relates to me pointing out that possessing the ability to think critically does not mean that it is employed in all situations.

I'll just take one of your examples and pick it apart. Communicating with the dead. You evidently haven't done this, but appear to preclude the possibility, notwithstanding the development of science which may eventually unlock such secrets if they are truly possible. I openly acknowledge the possibility that it may all be a crock, but it can currently be proven neither for nor against.

I'm sorry you are upset, please believe I wasn't making a personal attack on you, merely pointing out that the logic you employed did not imply (what I assumed was) the intended conclusion.

The experiences that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle considered evidence for communication with the dead were no different to the parlor tricks that Houdini knew were employed during seances. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did not believe in communicating with the dead because of the evidence, because Houdini could explain all the evidence more simply, Sir Arthur believed in it because he wanted to.

When Houdini staged demonstrations for Sir Athur, he would not show him how the tricks were performed, but would inform him in no uncertain terms that what he was seeing was trickery and not paranormal. Sir Athur's response? He believed that all Houdini did not realise it himself, he must possess paranormal abilities. He refused to accept the confession of the person tricking him. Yet this is the person we know could at least simulate critical thinking in his character Sherlock Holmes.

When I discovered this I thought it an interesting point, which is why I mentioned it in my post to you.

This does not prove, and I did not say, that communicating with the dead is not possible. Just that what Sir Athur Conan Doyle considered evidence was nothing of the sort.

At best your example only highlights that Houdini had developed beyond mere superstitious belief. There's no evidence that Doyle hadn't also, other than you ahving adjudged him by a standard that places all the "supernatural" in the category of quackery.

The evidence is above.

I can't entirely blame ya. I've seen some shyte that I wouldn't have believed had I not experienced it first hand.

Do you mean to imply that seeing or experiencing something means that it must be real? I'm seen many things that are not real, that do not exist, seeing them does not make them exist, experiencing them does not make them real.

In my own case I interpret this using theological terminology, for personal reasons that are related to the whole experience. To another it might be interpreted differently.

I hope you have taken into account the fallibility of the mind in accurately perceiving reality in certain situations. Experiences and recall of events have been shown to be shaped by misperceptions, what a person wants to believe, the reconstructive nature of memory, etc.

Only two logical rules are needed to rescue us from these pitfalls: Occam's razor, and David Hume's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

skeptic2

Hi LT,

I hold down a job as a Mental Health Manager - hardly Joe Quack and his fishing net. I regularly have to write reports that use empirical evidence in a scientific manner.
I've also experienced what I would describe as the so-called supernatural.

The argument that I assume you are making is a non-sequitur.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the novels about Sherlock Holmes, someone who used his critical thinking skills to solve crimes.

So we know Sir Arthur understood what it meant to think critically, but this did not stop him being a very credulous person.

His friend Harry Houdini repeatedly tried to convince him to employ reason in the issues for which he was credulous (communication with the dead, the cottingley fairies, etc), even putting together very elaborate demonstrations to show Sir Arthur how easy it is for the human mind to fool it's owner, or be fooled. But all to no avail.

There is a difference between possessing the capability to think critically, and actually employing it in all situations.

90

what would be "proof" of God's existance to someone?

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

jw
friends

short of god coming down herself to say "howdy y'all!

" what would it take to make you a believer in god?.

not necessarily the god of the bible or any religion in particular, just a supreme deity of some sort, call it ra, thor or chaos.

skeptic2

Is there proof that we are not actually part of someone's dream?

Is there proof that we are actually part of someone's dream? No.

Is there proof that we are not actually in someone's short story and we exist just in that story?

Is there proof that we are actually in someone's short story and we exist just in that story? No.

We can just keep going and going.

Yes we can.

Proof.............................what IS proof?

Proof is our only tool for weeding out the bad explanations or propositions from the good ones. Because you cannot disprove things does not mean you have to accept their existence as worthy of consideration.

A world without proving is a world we cannot begin to comprehend, because we can't possibly know anything.

25

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers, part II (get your popcorn)

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

question for atheists and unbelievers alike part ii in our last discussion, the focus of attention was whether or not.

there existed a possibility that god existed based on the fact.

that there are a number of claims and reports of individuals .

skeptic2

I took a closer look at the Mexico City UFO video and noticed some oddities. Take a look at the area around the aerials. When the UFO approaches, suddenly the aerial looks like it's been cut out from a different video image. If you look through the entire video there's more anomalies like this. Tell me what you think.