| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1001.1 | How we learn | HSSWS1::GREG | The Texas Chainsaw | Sat Mar 11 1989 01:32 | 36 |
|
Observation:
Many people want very badly to believe there is some magic,
some mystery, left in the world. These people actively seek
out evidence of such magic, and become convinced of its
existence by virtue of their studies. Their studies, of course,
come in the form of books/articles/etc which agree with their
fore-drawn conclusions.
Others disbelieve in magic, and seek to disprove it, in order
that their world may be predicatble and knowable. These people
then seek out evidence to substantiate their fore-drawn
conclusions, and, of course, they find it. They become convinced
that magic does not exist.
Still others have no opinions on a subject, nor any burning
interest in it. They don't care whether magic exists or not.
They do not actively seek information, and often overlook it
when it is presented to them. They are convinced that it makes
no difference.
Analysis:
These three classes of people have one thing in common;
their personal interests determined how they would study the
subject, and thus what they would learn about it. Their
belief systems established the framework on which their
knowledge was built (or not, as the case may be).
Conclusion:
People believe what they want to, regardless of the
contradicting evidence.
- Greg
|
| 1001.2 | some ideas are more encompassing than others; | SSDEVO::ACKLEY | Mediumfoot | Sun Mar 12 1989 16:21 | 46 |
|
When an idea represents real growth beyond previous ideas, the
better idea is more encompassing. For instance Newtonian physics
has been superceded by Einsteinian physics, where Newtons laws
are only valid as a special case, thus Newton's thought was encompassed
by Einstein's thought. (Newton's physics was valid for objects
with ordinary slow velocites, for instance, while it breaks down
at high velocities, where Einstein's theories are better, since
Einstein's ideas were valid for *both* slow and fast velocities.)
When comparing the claims of science and physics with the claims
of metaphysics and magic, I ask; Which is more encompassing?
Is magic explained as a subset of science, or is science really
a subset of magic? By the very definition, metaphysics encompasses
physics. I believe magic and metaphysics are valid for a larger
part of reality than is science.
In the natural course of human development do people become
scientists first, then later become mystics? Or is the more
normal course of growth for a person to have a magical, metaphysical
viewpoint to be later converted to science and skepticism. Frankly
I can cite many cases of scientists who later became mystics or
metaphysicians, as if this were the normal course of development.
As an off-the-cuff example, I might mention Swedenborg who was
an engineer and scientist until the age of 46 when he became interested
in mystical experiences. On the other hand I have heard of very
few who started as mystics to be later converted to skeptical science,
and these few were usually involved in *fraudulent* forms of mysticism.
Colin Wilson is another who started writing his books _The_Occult_,
and _Afterlife_ as a skeptic and who has slowly become more open to
mystical and metaphysical ideas as he studied them.
It is my opinion that the skeptic often tries to reduce the larger
aspects of mystical phenomena to their smaller scientific perspective,
thus missing the significance of events. Since the laws of magic and
metaphysics encompass those of science, magical events can't be
explained adaquately by science.
Metaphysics teaches that the operation of the mind is prior to,
and at cause, for the creation of the reality we experience. Science
was born from the attempts to separate the observer from the events,
while this is it's great power, it is also science's flaw. By
including the thoughts and beliefs of the observer, metaphysics
thus encompasses more reality than does "objective" science.
Alan.
|
| 1001.3 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Snazzy Personal Name Upon Request | Mon Mar 13 1989 11:58 | 16 |
| Reply to .1, Greg,
"In the realms of the mind what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."
Robert Anton Wilson quoting someone else B^)
This is the human condition.
I have some experience with so-called magick. My best guess is that
whatever it is it is mostly the calling into reality beneficial
coincidience. This places magick squarely in the field of positive
thinking.
I think it is so therefore I prove that it is.
The best write up on skepticism that I've seen is Robert Anton Wilson's
_The_New_Inquisition_.
|
| 1001.4 | skepticism has its place | LESNET::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Mon Mar 13 1989 12:21 | 134 |
| Re .0 (Keith):
>I've looked at a number of notes and checked the keyword listing for
>traces of skepticism ...
Should have looked for "debunking." There's at least one note on
that.
>FIRST PRINCIPLE: Assume the least miraculous explanation
Nothing wrong with that; it's sort of a biased subset of Occam's
Razor (roughly, the least complex solution is probably the correct
one). However, the "least miraculous" might still be other than
routine. Apollonius of Tyana roused a girl from what was sead to
be the dead with a well-chosen few words whispered in her ear,
according to the memoirs of his companion, Damis. The "least
miraculous" explanation was that she wasn';t dead, but in a coma.
However, rousing someone from a coma is, well, not an everyday
occurrence, either.
>Lot's of people have visions, dreams, etc. that reflect a possible
>real-life occurrence. That is, something happens in their dream.
>You may dream of the death of a loved-one, for instance. Since
>the death of this particular person could happen with some probability
>of p in any given day (perhaps p = 1 / (average life-span in days))
>there is a p chance that the person you dreamed of dying will die
>on that day--expected hit rate of p.
All very true. However, let me offer an example that was rather
odd. On the 19th of November, my father-in-law (whom I didsn't
know at the time) woke up after having had a really bad dream.
He dreamed that in a few days, President Kennedy would be shot and
killed. He told his family about it, crying (anmd he isn't a man
to cry easily), adding that they probably thought he was crazy.
Three days later, President Kennedy was assassinated.
The possibilities I can think of are: 1) coincidence, 2) a prophetic
dream, 3) some sort of momentary telepathic link to Lee Harvey Oswald
or anyone else involved in the assassination attempt.
>With some probability (p) my dream will come true, so given the large
>sample of people (n) who have had such dreams there is guaranteed by
>sheer "luck" to be some set (p*n) who have them come true--they will
>seem to have some mystical power.
In the case of my father-in-law, who is an extremely practical man,
the probability of dreaming about President Kennedy at all was fairly
low. And not only that he died, but by an assassin's bullet, is
even lower.
> ...... The course "Critical Thinking" challenged participants
>to logically evaluate real evidence in any case (from UFO's to SDI
>to Right-to-life) and come to the most reasonable conclusion.
There is nothing wrong with evaluating things logically; indeed,
if you've read my notes elsewhere, I generally encourage it. However,
"logic" in and of itself is only a useful tool, and like other tools,
can be misused. Any logical system can be built up if one accepts
the fundamental premeses as givens. For example, if one accepts
_as a given_ that one ethnicity, race, or gender is inferior to
another, then one can make a _logical_ argument for slavery,
segregation, or exploitation. If one rejects the given premise,
as I would in the example I just gave, then the logical arfgument
disappears.
Re .1 (Greg):
> Many people want very badly to believe there is some magic,
>some mystery, left in the world. These people actively seek
>out evidence of such magic, and become convinced of its
>existence by virtue of their studies.
One need not restrict this to magic and mystery. It goes to the
heart of many belief systems.
> Others disbelieve in magic, and seek to disprove it, in order
>that their world may be predicatble and knowable. These people
>then seek out evidence to substantiate their fore-drawn
>conclusions, and, of course, they find it.
These form a "negative belief system." To shift perspective for
a second, if we view bthe very religious person as a believer, then
the militant athiest is a "negative believer." In another conference,
there was some discussion about the practice of some motels and
hotels leaving Gideon Bibles in rooms of their guests. One of the
noters suggested a form of trashing such Bibles because of a dislike
of what the writer perceived to be trying to shove religion in the
noter's direction, unasked. The "negative believer" is just as
passionately dedicated to his or her cause as the believer.
Re .2 (Alan):
>...................... (Newton's physics was valid for objects
>with ordinary slow velocites, for instance, while it breaks down
>at high velocities, where Einstein's theories are better, since
>Einstein's ideas were valid for *both* slow and fast velocities.)
Well, for slow-velocity work, using Newtonian physics is far less
cumbersome than doing the same thing in Relativistic equations.
One _could_ use the latter, but the simpler the better.
>Is magic explained as a subset of science, or is science really
>a subset of magic? By the very definition, metaphysics encompasses
>physics. I believe magic and metaphysics are valid for a larger
>part of reality than is science.
Depends 'pon how wants to define "reality," my friend. As itr happens,
one of the classic Laws of Magic, the Law of Similarity (e.g., "similar
actions produce similar results," such as sprinkling water as part
of a rite to induce rain; is a superset of the scientific principle
that identical actions produce identical results [or "repeatability
of results" when conducting an experiment]).
> In the natural course of human development do people become
>scientists first, then later become mystics? Or is the more
>normal course of growth for a person to have a magical, metaphysical
>viewpoint to be later converted to science and skepticism.
In terms of anthropology, the latter case has been the rule,
historically. As an example, the alchemist of old resulted in the
chemist of today.
Re .3 (Mikie?):
>I have some experience with so-called magick. My best guess is that
>whatever it is it is mostly the calling into reality beneficial
>coincidience. This places magick squarely in the field of positive
>thinking.
Why Mikie?! Apparently from your definition, you've placed your
feet firmly down on both sides of the fence. :-)
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.5 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Snazzy Personal Name Upon Request | Mon Mar 13 1989 13:08 | 27 |
| Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 1001.0 Skepticism 3 replies
NEATO::CAMHI 114 lines 10-MAR-1989 17:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FIRST PRINCIPLE: Assume the least miraculous explanation
The simplest explanation is really the most likely but then
again, there have been elegant explanations for mysterious things
that have been totally wrong.
> SECOND PRINCIPLE: Enumeration of Favorable Statistics
Most of the really good sources of magickal technique strongly
recommend keeping a magickal diary. This is a record of the working
itself, the impressions associated with it and any perceived success
or failure. The successful magick I've seen took from 18 hours to 2
weeks to one moonth. So-called magick very rarely is instantious. I
usually give it a moonth.
And as I've said before I can't tell the difference between
successful magick and coincidence, beneficial coincidence.
Magickally yours...
|
| 1001.6 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Snazzy Personal Name Upon Request | Mon Mar 13 1989 13:10 | 46 |
| Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 1001.2 Skepticism 2 of 3
SSDEVO::ACKLEY "Mediumfoot" 46 lines 12-MAR-1989 13:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> When comparing the claims of science and physics with the claims
> of metaphysics and magic, I ask; Which is more encompassing? Is
> magic explained as a subset of science, or is science really a subset
> of magic? By the very definition, metaphysics encompasses physics.
> I believe magic and metaphysics are valid for a larger part of
> reality than is science.
Bonewits in _Real_Magic_ points out that most all the hard
sciences went through a stage of Occultism. Astronomy came from
Astrology. Chemistry came from Alchemy, etc.
Today, in our semi-rational, semi-insane world, the hard sciences
are pretty much established. However, the socalled soft sciences,
like human psychology and animal behaviorism are recent arrivals on
the academic scene.
Take psychology for instance. Psychology is fairly new. One could
say that psychology developed out of the magickal systems. And there
is parapsychology which attempts to encompass psychology wrongly.
Consequently what was magick in an earlier day is our technology
presently. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magick."
The problems we deal with in the emerging technologies is that we
operate with them intuitively; depending upon serendipity and/or
synchronicity to bring us understandable, and hopefully favorable,
results.
Another for instance is "spirits". Spirits do not exist in a hard
science yet. This is perhaps because today's hard sciences cannot
conceive of non-physical lifeforms. Science fiction conceived of them
long ago and humans have always sensed some form of these entities.
IMHO, the really good magickal person can use/employ these
entities in some way similar to training a dog, and for some
beneficial purposes.
Colin Wilson's Books are great. I like his Factor X theory.
|
| 1001.7 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Snazzy Personal Name Upon Request | Mon Mar 13 1989 13:12 | 10 |
| Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 1001.4 Skepticism 4 of 4
LESNET::KALLIS "Anger's no replacement for reason." 134 lines 13-MAR-1989 09:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why Mikie?! Apparently from your definition, you've placed your
> feet firmly down on both sides of the fence. :-)
Sure 'nough! B^)
|
| 1001.8 | abra ... abrac ... abra ... oh, Hell! Shazam! | LESNET::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Mon Mar 13 1989 13:26 | 17 |
| Re .6 (Mikie?):
> Consequently what was magick in an earlier day is our technology
> presently. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
> from magick."
Well, the late Arthur C. Clarke said that. Kallis' corollary is,
"However, there is always the slight possibility that it really
_is_ magic."
> Colin Wilson's Books are great. I like his Factor X theory.
Colin Wilson's books are interesting, entertaining, and sometimes
informative. But they are _talky_ beyond belief!!! He talks all
around his Factor X hypothesis, for one....
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.9 | There is much more hope in metaphysics than in science | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Mon Mar 13 1989 14:32 | 30 |
| re: .1 and .2
I like those replies.
Actually, I agree that metaphysics encompasses not only science
but religion, as well. Beliefs and "magick" (as distinguished from
"magic") can become commonplace enough that simpler solutions
will/can be found, i.e., science.
re: .0
You seem to value logic. I would caution against that,
Carl Sagan or no Carl Sagan. RATIONALE, on the other hand, is
far more appropriate to understanding what is REALLY going on.
As for arguments, that is for each person to decide for themselves.
We have talked around this issue in here before...I find arguments
to be generally very inelegant. It is entirely possible (read as
"probable") that many individuals who can not allow "love" and its
various offshoots into their beingness will substitute emotions
which are usually considered disharmonious (such as anger [righteous
or not], rage, fear, hurt, etc.) in order to FEEL *ANYTHING* or
*SOMETHING*. For ANY emotion is better than none. I strongly
question the motives of anyone who actively seeks confrontation,
argument, adversity, conflict, etc. Incidentally, if you fall
into this group, it is not too apparent. Others before you have
definitely fallen into this group, in my opinion, however.
Frederick
|
| 1001.10 | That could hurt! | USAT05::KASPER | This space intentionally left blank | Mon Mar 13 1989 15:28 | 9 |
| >> Why Mikie?! Apparently from your definition, you've placed your
>> feet firmly down on both sides of the fence. :-)
> Sure 'nough! B^)
Ouch! Hope it's a low fence! *<;')
Terry
|
| 1001.11 | A Couple of References | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Mon Mar 13 1989 18:58 | 26 |
| 1001.12 | Some further thoughts | NEATO::CAMHI | | Mon Mar 13 1989 20:44 | 257 |
| re: .1
> Observation:
>
> Many people want very badly to believe there is some magic,
> some mystery, left in the world. These people actively seek
> out evidence of such magic, and become convinced of its
> existence by virtue of their studies. Their studies, of course,
> come in the form of books/articles/etc which agree with their
> fore-drawn conclusions.
>
> Others disbelieve in magic, and seek to disprove it, in order
> that their world may be predicatble and knowable. These people
> then seek out evidence to substantiate their fore-drawn
> conclusions, and, of course, they find it. They become convinced
> that magic does not exist.
>
> Still others have no opinions on a subject, nor any burning
> interest in it. They don't care whether magic exists or not.
> They do not actively seek information, and often overlook it
> when it is presented to them. They are convinced that it makes
> no difference.
You seem to have omitted the group to which I belong on several issues
(and I think/hope many others feel they belong also). Namely, the
group that has no opinion, not because they do not care, but because
the *evidence* is not sufficient to justify a conclusion as of yet.
On such matters I will always believe the less miraculous explanation
until a more miraculous explanation has been proven.
I do not rule out the possibility of magic. I seek the truth in all
instances, a primary goal of science. But I also recognize that
"unusual" things which are attributed to magic or to supernatural
intervention or to the gods have repeatedly throughout history been
explained by less miraculous means and become a part of science. The
sun is not pulled by chariots anymore and lightening is not hurled by
the gods. Once a devine role is explained in scientific terms, the
belief in active devine intervention in that role ceases, as it has
with the pulling of the sun. It leaves a "God of the Gaps [of
science]."
That is not to say it will necessarily be proven that everything which
is currently attibuted to divinity will be proven false. The atheist
has made as fatal an error as the blind-faith believer in that
respect--the final tally isn't in yet and they've made their
conclusions.
Although I've focused on belief in divinity above, the ideas are
largely tranferable to magic, etc. which is not directly attributed to
divinity but just to some unknown, believed-to-be supernatural force.
re: .2
> When comparing the claims of science and physics with the claims
> of metaphysics and magic, I ask; Which is more encompassing?
> Is magic explained as a subset of science, or is science really
> a subset of magic? By the very definition, metaphysics encompasses
> physics. I believe magic and metaphysics are valid for a larger
> part of reality than is science. [etc...]
I'm affraid you may have lost me in the abstractness of your arguement
and some examples may be helpful. However, I will try to address what
I think you're saying:
I will grant unquestionably that their is a larger reality set than
that which science has explained--those things which fall into the
"mysteries of the universe" category. The question is what to
attribute them to. If you define magic as that which we do not
understand, then I will also grant that there is magic and we are in
agreement.
However, I think the issue is really that people attribute what they
don't understand to different categories. A person of blind faith
will attribute it to a supernatural force. Equally bad is the person
of "blind faith is science" who claims that they believe in nothing
supernatural and all things will eventually be explained by sceince.
I will be content being undecided for now, but desparately seek the
truth in each case.
> > FIRST PRINCIPLE: Assume the least miraculous explanation
re .4
> Nothing wrong with that; it's sort of a biased subset of Occam's
> Razor (roughly, the least complex solution is probably the correct
> one).
and .5
> The simplest explanation is really the most likely but then
> again, there have been elegant explanations for mysterious things
> that have been totally wrong.
I'm not sure "least complex" or "simplest" is exactly the phrasing I'd
use--least miraculous is really what I mean. Explaining that pyramids
were built by gods is least complex; but describing how they could
have been built by humans is easier to swallow. So I agree with you,
but I don't think it sways me from my principle.
> However, the "least miraculous" might still be other than
> routine. Apollonius of Tyana roused a girl from what was sead to
> be the dead with a well-chosen few words whispered in her ear,
> according to the memoirs of his companion, Damis. The "least
> miraculous" explanation was that she wasn';t dead, but in a coma.
> However, rousing someone from a coma is, well, not an everyday
> occurrence, either.
I am told that this "therepy" for rousing people out of coma's is now
used in medicine--that the voice of a loved-one in the ear will tend
to increase the patient's will to fight leading to increased chance
for rousing them from the coma.
I don't contend that this is not impressive. I contend that it can be
explained without resorting to the supernatural though (which you
didn't do but their was sorta that implication... ;-) )
> All very true. However, let me offer an example that was rather
> odd. On the 19th of November, my father-in-law (whom I didsn't
> know at the time) woke up after having had a really bad dream.
> He dreamed that in a few days, President Kennedy would be shot and
> killed. He told his family about it, crying (anmd he isn't a man
> to cry easily), adding that they probably thought he was crazy.
> Three days later, President Kennedy was assassinated.
>
> The possibilities I can think of are: 1) coincidence, 2) a prophetic
> dream, 3) some sort of momentary telepathic link to Lee Harvey Oswald
> or anyone else involved in the assassination attempt.
>
> In the case of my father-in-law, who is an extremely practical man,
> the probability of dreaming about President Kennedy at all was fairly
> low. And not only that he died, but by an assassin's bullet, is
> even lower.
Examples are, of course, where the whole thing starts getting very
personal and the potential to inadvertently insult runs high.
The comments I'll make below about insulting people are somewhat
tangential to the dream above because you've already offered the
alternative explanations. You have indicated a personal leaning to 2
or 3 it seems, but you haven't ruled 1 out.
I'd point out that given about 20 yrs between presidential
assassinations (about 7200 days) that there is, by luck, a 3 in 7200
chance or so of having a seemingly prophetic dream to that effect
within 3 days of the event. Yes, its small and yes in your case there
was a hit. But to make a conclusion about the general likelihood of
this being more than luck I need another statistic, namely the
real-life ratio of hits to misses. I'd need to know how many people
generally have such dreams when nothing happens. I'm not going to
find out though, so I won't be able to draw either conclusion from the
evidence I have. I won't know that it isn't prophesy, but similarly,
since it's explainable that it MIGHT not be, I'm not going to go to
your father in law for future stock prices.
I hope you won't be insulted that without more evidence I'd have to
continue leaning to #1.
Now for the tangent:
In general, I hope that people don't get mad as alternatives to
experiences with the supernatural are suggested. In practice, I know
this hope is relatively futile. In fact, prof. Sagan points this out
as a primary reason that most scientists stay away from getting
involved with things like UFO's and telepathy to begin with: they
just end up getting people mad at them. He described several personal
experience when investigating a UFO citing, for instance, a little
checking uncovered a balloon in the area. When the people who had
reported it were told, they got very angry at him.
Research shows that in the light of disconfirming evidence, the belief
tends to be held onto MORE STRONGLY (at least in the short run) as
people fight back against disconfirmation in their belief structure.
The extent of the fighting back is directly in proportion to how much
they've staked on the belief. If it's their public reputation and/or
their worldly wealth, etc. the effect is tremendous.
An extensive study of this is described in _When_Prophesy_Fails_ by
Festinger, et al in the 50's.
> There is nothing wrong with evaluating things logically; indeed,
> if you've read my notes elsewhere, I generally encourage it. However,
> "logic" in and of itself is only a useful tool, and like other tools,
> can be misused. Any logical system can be built up if one accepts
> the fundamental premeses as givens.
I couldn't agree more. Let us all go seek the truth together :-)
re .9
> You seem to value logic. I would caution against that,
> Carl Sagan or no Carl Sagan. RATIONALE, on the other hand, is
> far more appropriate to understanding what is REALLY going on.
> As for arguments, that is for each person to decide for themselves.
> We have talked around this issue in here before...I find arguments
> to be generally very inelegant.
I'm not sure I understand your distinction, however one thing I don't
expect to ever compromise on is seeking the truth is using logic.
"Logic" to me implies a systematic methodology for seeking the truth.
"Flawed logic" is actually, to me, an oxymoron. As someone else
mentioned, the premises can be flawed leading to flawed conclusions,
but the infrastructure of logic is critical to truth seeking. I'm
taling the basics, like A implies B means not B implies not A but
doesn't imply that not A implies not B. That framework is critcal.
> It is entirely possible (read as
> "probable") that many individuals who can not allow "love" and its
> various offshoots into their beingness will substitute emotions
> which are usually considered disharmonious (such as anger [righteous
> or not], rage, fear, hurt, etc.) in order to FEEL *ANYTHING* or
> *SOMETHING*. For ANY emotion is better than none. I strongly
> question the motives of anyone who actively seeks confrontation,
> argument, adversity, conflict, etc. Incidentally, if you fall
> into this group, it is not too apparent. Others before you have
> definitely fallen into this group, in my opinion, however.
I DON'T SEEK CONFRONTATION, DAMMIT!!!!
:-)
No, I agree with you. Confrontation for the sake of making arguement
and shooting down others damages all. I hope I will never be
perceived as doing so (although sometimes it's hard to restrain from
sarcasm in light of a real "hot one"). I hope those who engage in
debate will always be doing so to their mutual benefit by gaining new
perspectives and different oppinions in the search for the truth (or
when it's a non-true/false issue I hope debate can lead to the best
settlement or compromise as in political arenas).
> >> Why Mikie?! Apparently from your definition, you've placed your
> >> feet firmly down on both sides of the fence. :-)
>
> > Sure 'nough! B^)
>
> Ouch! Hope it's a low fence! *<;')
What's the symbol for high, squeeky voice? :-)
-Keith
p.s. I look at this as an opportunity to discuss a very interesting
set of topics about which I haven't made firm conclusions (although I
seem to lean one way) with others who seem to lean the other way. I
hope others perceive it that way as well. If instead, it seems to be
just "arguing" and if skeptical views are not what this conference seeks,
I will regretfully but understandably withdraw from future input.
|
| 1001.13 | The Magic of Science, and the Science of Magic | ATLAST::LACKEY | Carefully orchestrated sponteneity | Tue Mar 14 1989 11:56 | 5 |
| What we view as "natural" expands as our awareness expands.
Perhaps today's magic is tomorrow's science.
Jeff
|
| 1001.14 | Scientific Methodology and Proof | CSG::PINCOMB | John | Tue Mar 14 1989 13:19 | 61 |
|
<Measurement Systems>
It seems to me that the central "argument" that is being discussed here is
the concept of scientific method and the resultant dependency on measurement
systems, cause/effect relationships and proof.
I am working and living in a time when I have been trained in school to be
"logical" and structured about the ways I approach solving problems, and I
was hired by Digital to use these same mind patterns for the corporate good
(with some "creativity" thrown in.)
If I focused only on that which my mind could prove, then my progress or
development as a person and focused energy would be slowed.
It is important for me to allow my energy to express/focus/envision
reality in new ways, sometimes without verifiable definable proof in
order to continue my evolution.
A simple puzzle that illustrates this called The Nine Dots. The idea is to
connect the nine dots in the diagram with four lines without lifting the
pencil from the paper.
(I will post the solution in a separate note for you puzzle lovers).
o o o
o o o
o o o
The point is that I sometimes, in order to achieve progress, have to think
outside my "normal" plane of thought or consciousness. The inspirations I
have might not be logical, in the purest sense of the word - i.e. not bound
to my normal thought processes and not provable in my base of scientific
data, but this is OK. This is part of my process of enlightenment.
I submit that it is, therefore, more beneficial to me to be balanced but
leaning toward "enlightenment" not "skepticism" when I try to understand or
envision new events and ideas. I approach this process with cautious
optimism and with an open mind that allows for the possibility of the
existence of new concepts that cannot be logically or scientifically
proven.
John
|
| 1001.15 | Nine Dots Solution | CSG::PINCOMB | John | Tue Mar 14 1989 13:30 | 21 |
| X * * * * *o * * * *o * * * *o
* * *
* * *
* * *
o o o
* * *
* *
* * *
o o o
* * *
* * *
* * *
* X
John
|
| 1001.16 | Reminds me of anal retentives. | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Tue Mar 14 1989 13:54 | 46 |
| re: .12
Thank you for your response. And what you have to say, as
well as "how", is all very nice and "logical". Would I fault you
for being logical (*Mr. Spock, come quickly.*)? No, but I would
say that you would be severely handicapping yourself to do so.
Instead of using all the tools available, you've decided to make
it using neo-stone age implements. All of us in this conference
(and in my reality, as far as I can tell) who are human [ ;-) ]
have grown up using logic as our primary form of rationale...
especially in our formal educations. But as it appears to me,
you are using that as the cornerstone for "truth" without opening
yourself up fully to the possibility, let alone probability, of
any other availability. Rather than take a bunch of time to offer
something that I already have, I would like to direct you to
note 358.128. If you spend the time reading it, you will see that
you fit into what has been called the future of consensus. For
me, and for many others, that alternative does not have the appeal
that the future of choice has. In other words, of the four
different methods used for "rationale", you have chosen either/both
of the first two...small leading to big, past leading to present.
As long as you do, you will be "right" in everything you say.
Unfortunately, the future is severely limited and pessimistic using
those two belief systems. As .14 (John) has pointed out, we can
use "logic" as a tool, but perhaps only until we have grown beyond
that.
I am currently reading "The Kin of ATA are waiting for You"
and have already picked up a concept in there that correlates to
our discussion...that time is now, that logic is based on time
and that logic is based on past leading to present. In the book,
time "IS".
You see, all of your arguments are valid. The problem is
that your premise is not complete enough. There *are* other
possible (probable, actual) realities. Some of us are opening
to those realities...you appear to wish to close yourself off
from them...your choice, of course. It is as we have discussed
in here before, that those who are skeptics can never fully
understand what the others are talking about...they simply cannot
allow for that belief and will do everything within their own
belief systems to disprove the others or offer "logical" explanations.
Again, that will work, but the future it holds is very limited
and extremely unappealing to me. Question by all means...but if
you really want to do yourself a favor, don't shut yourself out.
Frederick
|
| 1001.17 | clarify | NEATO::CAMHI | | Tue Mar 14 1989 14:47 | 35 |
| Clearly a more specific example of what I mean by my cautiousness
in accepting unusual/unscientific concepts is in order. This is
because people have interpretted my view as being willing (or desirous
of) shutting out possibilities. This isn't the case--I welcome
all explanations for something. And I won't draw a conclusion one
way or another until a conclusion can be drawn.
In practice, however, where this runs into difficulty is in having to
make a *decision* before a *conclusion* has been reached. Where I draw
the line is in deciding whether or not to take a chance on something. I
will use logic and reason to try to avoid getting screwed, and I
believe that those who do not are more likely to open themselves up for
getting screwed. "there's a sucker born..."
Should I pay a lot of money to go to a psychic healer?
Given the relevant evidence on psychic healing, I'd say no. If,
however, I am desparate and at the end of my rope, I'd be more likely
to take a risk.
Con-artists play on people's willingness to believe and desire to
believe to make a profit at their expense. It's not just a matter
of a philosophical abstract discussion in that case.
Someone who really, really misses his dead mother and desparately
wants to talk to her will be opened up to abuses by people claiming
to be able to contact her for a fee who are really phonies. That
is not to say that I have ruled out the possibility of some people
being able to contact the dead. BUT there are unquestionably exapmles
of people having claimed that ability who were lying.
Some degree of vulnerability is necessary in life or you'll never
leave the house. It's a matter of where you set the level and what
you do to protect the downside.
|
| 1001.18 | I would take some study, but... | HPSTEK::BEST | Unseen...and yet...ignored. | Tue Mar 14 1989 18:32 | 13 |
|
I just wanted to mention something about calculating the odds of
dreams actually happening. I know nothing of the calculation of
odds, but don't you ("you" meaning anyone who undertakes to do this)
have to consider the percentage of dreams that are "possible"?
For example, can't we rule out dreams of people transforming into
others, or people flying? Symbolically these dreams may make sense
but they are unlikely to happen. Someone being shot seems more
probable in concensus reality. Gee, almost all my dreams aren't
probable or possible.
Guy
|
| 1001.19 | IT! IT! | HPSTEK::BEST | Unseen...and yet...ignored. | Tue Mar 14 1989 18:34 | 7 |
|
oops! That title should read "*It* would take some study".
Not that I wouldn't, of course. :-)
Guy
|
| 1001.20 | This may be cryptic; the moon is in Cancer... | GENRAL::DANIEL | | Tue Mar 14 1989 18:59 | 25 |
| > Clearly a more specific example of what I mean by my cautiousness
> in accepting unusual/unscientific concepts is in order.
I can accept the concept of order but I find that I'm the one who imposes the
order upon what I view as Reality. I think that the world is chaotic; I think
nature is chaotic, within a higher order (life).
> This is
> because people have interpretted my view as being willing (or desirous
> of) shutting out possibilities.
I don't see you as shutting out possibilities. I think that all things which
have provable conclusions have not been proven yet and that those of humanity
who reach beyond what's already scientific are the scientists of future memory.
Would I go to a psychic healer? Given what I know about how the American
Medical Association got to be so powerful a force of "what's true/right and
what's not" and how what I call "cut-and-paste medicine" works (i.e., I always
feel that I'm giving up control of my body to someone else), I would go to a
psychic healer because my *belief* is that alternative practices actually leave
me in control; help me to help myself. In a sense, you could say that I've
reached a logical alternative to your logical conclusion (that you would see a
traditional m.d.).
M.D.
|
| 1001.21 | probability | NEATO::CAMHI | | Tue Mar 14 1989 19:05 | 13 |
| re .18
You are pointing out the other side of looking at the odds. What
I had calculated was *given* a dream about something bizarre happening,
what are the odds of that dream coming true without any unnatural
forces having caused either the dream or the action. There must
be some probability of this given that the action was not impossible
to begin with. The hard part is knowing whether apparently predictive
dreams are truly predictions or just the spoken-about coincidences
(some of which there will necessarily be).
-KC
|
| 1001.22 | good perspective | NEATO::CAMHI | | Tue Mar 14 1989 19:24 | 32 |
| re .20
>I don't see you as shutting out possibilities.
Thank you
> I would go to a psychic healer because my *belief* is that alternative
> practices actually leave me in control; help me to help myself.
Very interesting, and very practical.
Interesting because a standard line against psychic healing (read in an
anthology by scientists about all this, can't remember the title) is
that psychic healers aren't really doing anything psychic. For
instance, some famous healer guarantees a 70% healing rate and doesn't
deal with things like broken limbs, etc., while the medically accepted
self-healing rate for disease in general is 80% (that is, if you take
no medical action, the body cures itself 80% of the time anyway). The
arguement continues that the potential benefit of psychic healing is
that positive thinking can be helpful to the body to recuperate and the
true faith that you'll get better, outside forces or no outside forces,
can help you get better.
In a sense, you've already accepted this as the reason for going to a
psychic healer. The downside, of course, is the other 20% when medical
attention is important or even life-critical. If, by chance, the
psychic healer you ('you' in the generic sense) get is a phony and you
have unwavering faith... you're screwed.
-KC
|
| 1001.23 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Snazzy Personal Name Upon Request | Tue Mar 14 1989 21:08 | 120 |
| Reply to .12, Keith,
> You seem to have omitted the group to which I belong on several issues
> (and I think/hope many others feel they belong also). Namely, the
> group that has no opinion, not because they do not care, but because
> the *evidence* is not sufficient to justify a conclusion as of yet.
True, but perhaps one doesn't want to come to a conclusion.
Therefore they refuse to review what proof is there. Or that there is
so little proof that a conclusion _seems_ unwarranted.
There is a Learyism that suggests that 'ritual is to magick what
experimentation is to science.' If no energy is put into the
experiment, no useful informtion will come out of it. GIGO.
Consequently no conculsion is arrived at becuase no real energy went
into the experiment.
Chicken or egg?
> On such matters I will always believe the less miraculous explanation
> until a more miraculous explanation has been proven.
Sounds reasonable to me. Obviously one can suffer from a trend.
The trend not to examine fully. What the thinker thinks the prover
proves. The accuracy of the conclusion or proof in not in question
here. The thinker could think something 'wrong' and the prover would
prove the 'wrong' thing right. Preferences are taken into account.
> I do not rule out the possibility of magic. I seek the truth in all
> instances, a primary goal of science. But I also recognize that
> "unusual" things which are attributed to magic or to supernatural
> intervention or to the gods have repeatedly throughout history been
> explained by less miraculous means and become a part of science. The
> sun is not pulled by chariots anymore and lightening is not hurled by
> the gods. Once a devine role is explained in scientific terms, the
> belief in active devine intervention in that role ceases, as it has
> with the pulling of the sun. It leaves a "God of the Gaps [of
> science]."
Mythology is the collective dream of a culture. We are presently
beginning to understand myth and it's affects upon culture. As soon
as that is understood we can get to other questions with clearer
minds.
God of the Gaps of Science. I like that. I tried to convey that
idea to others in another conference by saying that God is the last
repository for unanswered or unanswerable questions. "IT MUST BE A
MIRACLE. God did it."
> That is not to say it will necessarily be proven that everything which
> is currently attibuted to divinity will be proven false. The atheist
> has made as fatal an error as the blind-faith believer in that
> respect--the final tally isn't in yet and they've made their
> conclusions.
To me both suffer from a form of fundamentalism. It's also
something akin to idolatry. Now I'm completely sympathetic with
atheists and agnostics. But both the atheist and the fundamentalist
seem to believe that what they perceive to be is all there actually
is.
> Although I've focused on belief in divinity above, the ideas are
> largely tranferable to magic, etc. which is not directly attributed to
> divinity but just to some unknown, believed-to-be supernatural force.
So you're saying that lifeforms cannot exist if you cannot sense
and/or measure them? I seem to remember that people were shocked when
they found water drops filled with 1000s of different critters. They
could not sense or measure them before the microscope. We cannot
sense or measure non-physical life forms because we don't have the
proper insturments and/or we aren't looking in the right places.
What I like to do is mentally expand the bounds of what I call
Nature. Once the bounds are opened up new and exciting things happen.
As far as I can tell Nature is an open system, not just limited to
the physical planet itself. Nature is Universe and Universe is the
name of an ongoing process.
> However, I think the issue is really that people attribute what they
> don't understand to different categories. A person of blind faith
> will attribute it to a supernatural force. Equally bad is the person
> of "blind faith is science" who claims that they believe in nothing
> supernatural and all things will eventually be explained by sceince.
> I will be content being undecided for now, but desparately seek the
> truth in each case.
That's about the best one can do.
> I'm not sure I understand your distinction, however one thing I don't
> expect to ever compromise on is seeking the truth is using logic.
> "Logic" to me implies a systematic methodology for seeking the truth.
> "Flawed logic" is actually, to me, an oxymoron. As someone else
> mentioned, the premises can be flawed leading to flawed conclusions,
> but the infrastructure of logic is critical to truth seeking. I'm
> taling the basics, like A implies B means not B implies not A but
> doesn't imply that not A implies not B. That framework is critcal.
Logic cannot answer every question wo/mankind poses. Somethings
just don't fit into the organic framework. Logic is indeed very
valuable but it cannot replace intuition, serendipity and
synchronicity. This parallels the relationship between solar and
lunar knowledge; the hard and soft sciences. As long as wo/mankind
perceives Nature with an organic brain we will operate in an organic
framework. Both the hard and soft knowledges can work together if
their strengths and weaknesses are understood to represent a part of
All that Is. Another step in the right direction is in understanding
that there is more to life than 'hard' and 'soft', logic and
intuition, solar and lunar knowledge. We can get bit by dualistic
systems of thought.
> I DON'T SEEK CONFRONTATION, DAMMIT!!!!
> :-)
Aw, come on and play the game Keith. I expect no less than
vigorous debate when I rattle the chains in ::Christian. "Veryly,
veryly I say unto you, thou art an unbeliever in the sanctium of the
holy." Anyway, it's fun isn't it? B^)
|
| 1001.24 | SOME HARD DATA | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Wed Mar 15 1989 12:28 | 37 |
| re: .11 (I think)
The reference I promised is ...
MARGINS OF REALITY by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego and New York
415 pages $27.95 in US.
In the following text, "**n" means "raised to the nth power.
If you're seriously interested in quantitative and objective reporting
on whether consciousness can influence what we call "reality" by
apparently non-physical means I suggest you check it out. For example,
in a summary of their results on the influence of consciousness over a
random number generator, after over 2,500,000 trials with 47 people,
the cumulative probably of achieving the results found was less than
1 in 10**-2. In the case of one operator, after over 5,000 trials
in one type of test, a probability of achieving the same results
randomly was 9*10**-6. In another type of test after 10,000 runs,
the probability of randomly achieving those results was 3*10**-7.
In the case of studying precognitive remote perception, after 334
trials each measuring over 30 parameters, the probability of randomly
achieving the same results was 1.8*10**-11.
I believe this book warrants a separate note string, if there is
anyone else out there who has read it.
Regards,
Donald Reinke
PS: This particular subject is quite relevant to Digital's business,
because all of our protocols depend on the randomness of noise for
their error detection.
DR
|
| 1001.25 | sources, etc. | NEATO::CAMHI | | Wed Mar 15 1989 12:31 | 94 |
| re .23
> There is a Learyism that suggests that 'ritual is to magick what
> experimentation is to science.' If no energy is put into the
> experiment, no useful informtion will come out of it. GIGO.
> Consequently no conculsion is arrived at becuase no real energy went
> into the experiment.
> Chicken or egg?
You'd be surprised how much energy does go into investigating
paranormal claims. I'd suggest the following books:
_Science_and_the_Paranormal_ edited by George Abell and Barry
Singer which is a collection of investigations of the
supernatural covering a vast array of topics (many of which are
discussed in this notes file). Section authors include Isaac
Asimov, Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, James Randi,
etc. The section on psychic healing, for instance, was written by
someone who spent two years actively researching (first-hand)
"healers."
_Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds_ by
Charles Mackay gives a nineteenth century perspective on some
historical cases of supernatural claims and people's willingness
to accept them (and in some instances the associated costs).
_When_Prophecy_Fails_ by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley
Schachter (1956) is an extensive undercover, insider look at a
group prophesizing the end of the world and reaction mechanisms to
disconfirmation of a belief system which still leaves the belief
system in tact. The intro also cites other historical examples of
this without the benefit of an insider (second coming of Christ,
Anabaptists of 16th C, Sabbatai Zevi, Millerites of 19th C,
beginnings of Christianity)
The research is out there. I think some "believers" tend to
dismiss it (just as some scientists and non-believers tend to
dismiss the supernatural), which is unfortunate. I hope that
citing these sources may at least provide some of the passive
readers of this conference who could be swept away with the
non-questioning concensus I've sensed at times with a place to see
some counter-oppinions.
I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm just pointing out that it's
easy to start agreeing with things when the other side is not
presented (as discussed in all the books cited plus Stanley
Milgram's _Obedience_to_Authority_).
>> Although I've focused on belief in divinity above, the ideas are
>> largely tranferable to magic, etc. which is not directly attributed to
>> divinity but just to some unknown, believed-to-be supernatural force.
>
> So you're saying that lifeforms cannot exist if you cannot sense
> and/or measure them?
No. I'm definitely not saying that. In fact, I'm very confident
that many lifeforms we haven't sensed yet do exist; however,
having not sensed them yet, I'm not going to try to describe what
they look like or what they do, etc.
> I seem to remember that people were shocked when
> they found water drops filled with 1000s of different critters. They
> could not sense or measure them before the microscope. We cannot
> sense or measure non-physical life forms because we don't have the
> proper insturments and/or we aren't looking in the right places.
Good point. That underscores why I think so many scientists are
at fault too--they've shut out the possibilities. It takes a long
time for scientists as a community to accept new theories even
when proven within their own "laws" (if it's a major change, it
could take a full generation of new scientists to come in before
the old beliefs fade away--disconfirmation is hard to swallow).
The scientific community is often as big a frustration to the
Sagan's of the world as those with blind-faith.
>> I DON'T SEEK CONFRONTATION, DAMMIT!!!!
>> :-)
>
> Aw, come on and play the game Keith. I expect no less than
> vigorous debate when I rattle the chains in ::Christian. "Veryly,
> veryly I say unto you, thou art an unbeliever in the sanctium of the
> holy." Anyway, it's fun isn't it? B^)
You bet! Thanks for your reply.
Keith
|
| 1001.26 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | flight of the dark... | Wed Mar 15 1989 13:20 | 12 |
|
All I can say is......
where's Topher Cooper when we need him! ;-)
Carole
|
| 1001.27 | He means well... | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Mar 15 1989 13:48 | 6 |
| RE: .26 (Carole)
Trying to find the time to reply to all of this.
Topher
|
| 1001.28 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | flight of the dark... | Wed Mar 15 1989 13:53 | 7 |
|
Glad to know you're still here Topher! Haven't seen you around
much.
C.
|
| 1001.29 | I need some allies | NEATO::CAMHI | | Wed Mar 15 1989 13:57 | 10 |
| re .26 and .27
Uh, oh. Is there something I should know about here? The secret
weapon? The ace in the whole?
WHAT HAVE I DONE??? no... no... don't take me...
:-)
KC
|
| 1001.30 | Perhaps an introduction is in order. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Mar 15 1989 15:43 | 50 |
| 1001.various (Keith)
I know you're trying, Keith, but you've bought into a prepared package
of beliefs.
Let me introduce myself, in case you haven't "met" me in this notes
file before: I am a full-fledged, card carrying skeptic and critical
thinker. One day I was motivated to take a look at the scientific
evidence for paranormal phenomena rather than looking at other people's
(negative) evaluations/summaries of the evidence. I was lucky that the
source materials were available to me; they are frequently hard to
find. To my surprise (gross understatement) I found that there was a
great deal of high quality evidence which appeared to meet all the
standards of scientific rationality. I certainly didn't agree with all
the reasoning or accept all the experiments at face value, but all in
all they compared favorably with any other "frontier" research area
(i.e., one in which boundaries are being extended, new methods are
being tried, and theory is still open, rather than one in which the
effort is being put into filling the "holes" and refining measurements)
I had looked into.
Anyway I've spent the last sixteen years trying to understand just what
those experiments mean. In a nut-shell, I've become a
parapsychologist. If you look back at my postings over the years in
this conference you'll find that I take a rather schizoid seeming
stance. Many of my postings involve what I believe to be reasonable
conventional explanations for things, and the fundamental need for
skepticism, logic and attempts at objectivity. Others, however, argue
strongly for an understanding of the limits of our knowledge, the
arbitrariness of the scientific definition of truth, the logical
inconsistencies of objectivism, and the crypto-dogmatism of much
so-called skepticism (every such dogmatist I have ever met, I might
add, criticizes scientific dogmatism but claims unbiased objectivity as
the basis of their own beliefs). I argue the center against either
end.
All this leads up to my own first principle of rationality (a term I
prefer to the negatively connotated term skepticism):
FIRST PRINCIPLE: Do not assume, just because they talk about
objectivity, critical thinking, scientific standards,
replicatability, truth justice, the American way and other-good-
things,that they are giving you a whole or accurate picture of
the available evidence or even the actual claims made. Always
go to the source, and try to get an independent opinion of just
what the source is.
In my next note, I'll talk some about *your* first principle.
Topher
|
| 1001.31 | A Healing Example | CSG::PINCOMB | John | Wed Mar 15 1989 20:20 | 101 |
|
I would like to use the area of "psychic" healing from .17 to illustrate
a more important issue that has been referred to here.
At one level, a discussion might take the following direction....
Logically speaking most people who had a medical problem that was severe
enough to require attention, would go through a selection process that
would probably extend further than the yellow pages or a listing of the
AMA MD's in the area. Most people would get references.
I submit that a person desiring "psychic" healing would do the same,
and would therefore achieve the same results or face the same probability
of success (and failure) that one would in a "medical" treatment program.
At another level....
The fact is that virtually all of us have the "power" to heal others
and to heal ourselves, but most of us do not "know" how to do it, or will
not accept that the possibility exists that healing power *can* be and
*is*.
I believe that the primary reason for this is, that this kind of healing
cannot be proven with the same scientific method that:
Diagnoses a problem
Monitors the treatment process
Validates the cure (effect)
and most importantly,
MEASURES the *cause* in the classic scientific sense
and, most people therefore remain stuck in the comfort and safety of
their existing belief structures which society does a lot to reinforce
(with "money" and "power" selling their unenlightened views.)
This concept of measurement illustrates what I am the most concerned
about.
It is a tremendous problem that the paradigm shift that must occur for
the majority of the population to accept the psychic healing concept
will be difficult to achieve without scientific proof.
But the capability to heal is available to most people right now.
What I am talking about here is a power that is not *concievable*
(and therefore nonexistant) to most people, although it could be if
they accepted the possibility that it could exist, visualized it
existing and learned how to focus it.
(But we do not learn how to do this kind of thinking in school.)
That means that *because* it is not measurable it does not exist for
most people.
(Who would believe it anyway, and even if it were measureable it violates
most of our ingrained "proven" methods, so it must not be true anyway.)
It is not measureable then, not because it does not exist, but because
it is not something that can be read off of an analog measurement device,
like temperature and a thermometer or resistance and an ohmmeter.
It is not measureable because someone has not invented a "Healing Power
Meter."
The individual then, without the base of scientific proof, does not
create the reality that it *is*, so it isn't for them.
Worse yet, the individual does not allow that the possibility might exist
that it *could* be, so they rely on the old comfortable patterns that
are safe and never allow it *to* be.
The real issue....
I believe that this kind of thinking pattern is the anchor that slows us
from achieving our higher selves and, oh by the way, an end to war, famine,
crime, disease, etc. - all the social concepts that *are* simply because
we are educated with the *facts* that support their existence and the
mental processes to maintain them.
We are not taught to conceive of a world that *is* without these things,
and we continue to pass on the old patterns to the next generation.
"Imagine" what John Lennon would say....
The good news is that more and more people are making progress, anchovies
are even creating new realities!
John
|
| 1001.32 | random musings | LESCOM::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Thu Mar 16 1989 11:59 | 116 |
| Re .12 (Keith):
>I'm not sure "least complex" or "simplest" is exactly the phrasing I'd
>use--least miraculous is really what I mean. Explaining that pyramids
>were built by gods is least complex; but describing how they could
>have been built by humans is easier to swallow. So I agree with you,
>but I don't think it sways me from my principle.
Ah, but _is_ explaining that the pyramids, for example, being built
by gods (or "gods") is the least complex? To explain it that way
means positing the gods, determining their attributes, developing
a model of the associated theology, etc. I think "complex" has
to be examined in that sort of perspective.
>> ....... Apollonius of Tyana roused a girl from what was said to
>> be the dead with a well-chosen few words whispered in her ear,
>> according to the memoirs of his companion, Damis. The "least
>> miraculous" explanation was that she wasn't dead, but in a coma.
>> However, rousing someone from a coma is, well, not an everyday
>> occurrence, either.
>
>I am told that this "therapy" for rousing people out of coma's is now
>used in medicine--that the voice of a loved-one in the ear will tend
>to increase the patient's will to fight leading to increased chance
>for rousing them from the coma.
Can't argue with that. However, Apollonius had never met the girl
in question.
>I don't contend that this is not impressive. I contend that it can be
>explained without resorting to the supernatural though (which you
>didn't do but their was sorta that implication... ;-) )
The point being that Apollonius was recorded to have done a few
other things that could be categorized as paranormal; and his
biographer was honest enough to mention the possibility of a coma
in that instance.
>I hope you won't be insulted that without more evidence I'd have to
>continue leaning to #1.
Not at all. You haven't met my father-in-law.
>Research shows that in the light of disconfirming evidence, the belief
>tends to be held onto MORE STRONGLY (at least in the short run) as
>people fight back against disconfirmation in their belief structure.
>The extent of the fighting back is directly in proportion to how much
>they've staked on the belief. If it's their public reputation and/or
>their worldly wealth, etc. the effect is tremendous.
Indeed. This is true in all fields, including those of debunkers.
Dennis Rawlings, one of the co-founders of the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) was
asked to do a statistical analysis of the claims of a neoastrologer,
Gaugelin, that he'd found a better-than-random statistical correlation
of certain planetary signs of their birth and their success of champion
athletes. Rawlings, who has repeatedly stated that he doesn't believe
in the paranormal, ran analyses and discovered that there was indeed
a correlation. When he reported this to the CSICOP committee, there
were attempts to discredit the analyses or to suppress the findings.
Rawlings finally in frustration quit CSICOP and wrote up his
experiences (which ran in _Fate_ magazine; it makes fascinating
reading of the internal politics of that organization). The honest
thing to have done, of course would to have noted the apparent
correlation and to have run more tests.
Re .17:
>In practice, however, where this runs into difficulty is in having to
>make a *decision* before a *conclusion* has been reached. Where I draw
>the line is in deciding whether or not to take a chance on something. I
>will use logic and reason to try to avoid getting screwed, and I
>believe that those who do not are more likely to open themselves up for
>getting screwed. "there's a sucker born..."
Okay, that's certainly valid. If you say "data insufficient," then
you can't or shouldn't ordinarily act so as to maximize the possibility
of being screwed. See my entry on "Charlatanism."
>Should I pay a lot of money to go to a psychic healer?
>
>Given the relevant evidence on psychic healing, I'd say no. If,
>however, I am desperate and at the end of my rope, I'd be more likely
>to take a risk.
Precisely. An example: suppose someone's been told they have terminal
cancer, and that all known treatments are impotent to effect a cure,
and are painful. The person has three choices: do nothing, take
the conventional treatment, or try something unconventional. (We've
assumed 2nd, 3rd, and possibly 4th opinions have been taken.) The
first two mean certain death. The second _might_ provide some time,
some life-prolonging, during which a cure might be found. The third
is a crapshoot. Logic would suggest that you're no worse off taking
the third alternative.
General observation:
Like Topher Cooper, I come from something like as heavy-science
background. I'll look at a "known mechanism of science" explanation
as the most likely when it's a viable alternative. I do not rule
out coincidences and will not indulge in _post hoc ergo proctor
hoc_ reasoning (i.e., B happened after A, therefore A caused B).
Having said that, I'll also say I've had several experiences that
suggest very strongly that there are paranormal mechanisms that
we don't yet understand sufficiently. Does this mean I'll swallow
any explanation for what caused such things? Hardly. My motto,
said before elsewhere in this Conference more than once, is "Keep
an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
Skepticism is a useful tool, and one every researcher should employ.
But blind disbelief (which I've not accused you of) isn't the same
thing as healthy skepticism.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.33 | 1st Principle -- 2nd Class | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Thu Mar 16 1989 14:26 | 138 |
| RE: .0
OK. Let's take a look at your FIRST PRINCIPLE. Since the wording is
critical, and its brief, I'll quote it:
> FIRST PRINCIPLE: Assume the least miraculous explanation.
As a principle of critical thinking, much less the first of two singled
out principles, this is distinctly weak. Steve made an attempt to
steer you onto firmer grounds by interpreting this as a restatement of
one of the widely accepted principle's of critical/scientific thinking
(i.e., the Principle of Parsimony; a.k.a., Occam's Razor) but you were
having none of it.
To make some sense of this we have to figure out just what it means --
we have to come up with some reasonable definitions for its terms.
There's nothing wrong with that -- that's to be expected from an
aphorism, which needs to be short and evocative to be memorable; but to
apply critical thinking to evaluate it, we have to "expand" it.
There are basically two terms of interest here: the word "assume" and
the phrase "least miraculous explanation".
Your note .17 seems to deal essentially with what you mean by "assume".
If forced to choose one of two exclusive actions to take based on the
truth of one of two exclusive explanations for an event, choose that
recommended by the explanation which is "least miraculous". I have no
problem with this definition. Although its direct application is
clearly limited to rather specialized circumstances it is also clearly
generalizable to more complex situations of multiple weighted choice.
So, if this is indeed close to what you intended then we don't have any
essential disagreements with this part.
So now we get to the concept of "the least miraculous explanation".
Let's pass on defining "explanation", the philosophers have been
arguing about that one for at least 3,000 years and I feel no
particular need to take sides there. Unless we get into trouble, I
think that we can assume that our intuitions about what this means
match well enough to allow communication.
That leaves us with "least miraculous". I don't want to put words into
your mouth, but I have read the various things you have written here
about applying this principle and have done my best to understand just
what you mean. It seems to me that the best operational definition I
can come up with is:
"least miraculous" = "most a priori likely"
If one explanation is more likely according to the existing model of
reality it should be accepted.
This gives us:
PRINCIPLE 1A: If one must choose between alternate explanations for an
event -- choose that alternative which is more likely.
This is certainly true, and is fit to stand as a basic principle, even
as an axiom of critical thinking. Indeed, properly generalized it is
part of the definition of a "rational agent" in Bayesian Decision
Theory, which is the best idealized model around for rationality.
The problem is, very few will disagree with it. Even the "CYOR" crowd
could incorporate it with the right definition of likelihood.
Determination of likelihood is intrinsically subjective. Likelihood
exists only relative to a body of existing theory. (Occam's razor
helps a bit here, but only a bit, and you have rejected its
applicability in any case).
But we're not really finished -- "least miraculous" has connotation as
well as meaning; specifically it implies certain reality models, or
more precisely it implies the rejection of certain other reality
models. It alludes to the classic confrontations between religious
faith and scientific "rationality". By choice of that word you bias
your decisions away from explanations which resemble traditional
religious explanations for physical phenomena and towards explanations
consistent with 18th century natural philosophy (whose preferred modes
of explanation were heavily influenced by a desire to draw a clear line
of demarcation between "natural" and "supernatural" explanations).
Let me take this out of the abstract and provide an example. Here we
have two explanations for an event:
1) A young man with a Calling and a Special Gift is granted
knowledge, by direct inspiration, of events transpiring at a
location at some distance.
2) A daring fraud hoodwinks a gullible professor.
Which of these two explanations is "least miraculous". There is no
question about it -- number 2 is by a wide margin.
But how about these two:
1) There exists an unknown, though lawful and eventually knowable,
physical mechanism which under the right conditions can create
correlations between systems which are isolated (along all
currently known causal connections) from each other.
2) A divinity student of good reputation quickly crossed a campus
unobserved, took a chair from a classroom and spent a significant
amount of time standing on that chair in a heavily traveled
corridor, looking in through a transom into a professor's office
(there is, by the way, no direct evidence or memory by anyone that
could be found of the door actually having a transom) and taking
notes. No one who observes him publicly questions his right to so
publicly spy on a professor, or comes forward later when the
results of the experiment become publicized. This was repeated on
many occasions.
Now which of *these* two explanations are *more likely*. Things are
not so clear. We are comparing the likelihood that the current list of
fundamental physical mechanisms is incomplete against the likelihood of
a truly baroque set of coincidences protecting a student who took an
extraordinary high risk of discovery and resulting discipline (if you
don't think that a student found to be spying on a professor would be
likely to face rather stiff discipline you don't know much about
Universities, particularly southern universities in the '30s) for
little apparent gain except the challenge and the reputation (never
professionally used, I might add).
Yet the two pairs of explanations are the same, simply described in
different terms and at a different level of detail. The first
explanation invokes the existence of "something" which is given the
label ESP. While the second is C.E.M. Hansel's widely cited "proof" of
fraud in the Pearce-Pratt experiment (mind you the *only* evidence for
this scenario is the same as for the first explanation -- statistically
significant results on the ESP experiment, Hansel presents no auxiliary
evidence to support this. This is considered by many "skeptics" to be a
central part of one of the classic refutations of parapsychological
claims).
As a principle of critical thinking I give your FIRST PRINCIPLE a C-.
As a principle of dogmatic conventionalism I give it a B. All
alternate interpretations I could think of came out at least marginally
worse.
Topher
|
| 1001.34 | No fundamental disagreement, but be careful | NEATO::CAMHI | | Thu Mar 16 1989 22:12 | 106 |
| re .30
> I know you're trying, Keith, but you've bought into a prepared package
> of beliefs.
Hmmm. Kind of vague, not sure just what you're saying.
If you're saying that I've taken on some canned beliefs to begin
with, you're absolutely right. I think we all do. To start with
nothing and build up is impossible. We'll have no basis for
decision-making in the interim until we reach our conclusions of
the way things work.
If you're saying that I've kept that belief set as prescribed by
others, you're dead wrong (ignore the following if that's not what
you meant).
I actually have a dynamic set of beliefs, as most people do to
varying degrees.
Three key differences among people arise. Consider each person's
current belief set housed in a guarded castle. The first
difference among people will be the initial inhabitants of the
castle--the canned beliefs they got mainly in childhood. A second
will be the people who come calling at the castle gate--the
experience set, etc. Third is how strict the guard is at the
drawbridge letting people in and out--the extent of
open-mindedness.
Those with static beliefs have the drawbridge bolted shut. I
don't, but my guard isn't sleeping either. To lock the door is to
end dynamism and deny the fact that Man's understanding of the
universe is always changing, as should the individual's.
(.33: "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
I like that.
back to .30)
I don't regret having an initial belief set. It was required to
deal with the world, as is my current, always-flawed but
always-changing belief set.
As an example, from youth I bought into (or was sold into)
religion. I have dismissed a lot of that and replaced it with
some personal conclusions about much of what religion prescribes
in the areas of ethics, thankfulness, etc.
Don't knock a starting point of beliefs. I know you don't knock
the dynamism in the belief set. And, if you're saying that my
beliefs are non-dynamic or are being prescribed by someone else
you're wrong. You'd really have no way to know, I realize,
because you've seen only the current snapshot of my thinking and
you don't know anything about the changes that took place to lead
me to where I am now. If you're saying what I think you are, I
should caution you to be careful of the arrogance implicit in
stating you understand one's thinking better than he does.
If you're simply pointing out that my beliefs seem to correlate
very highly with a group of others, I'd accept that (and I'd be
interested to know who you think they are).
> rationality (a term I prefer to the negatively connotated term
> skepticism):
agreed
> FIRST PRINCIPLE: Do not assume, just because they talk about
> objectivity, critical thinking, scientific standards,
> replicatability, truth justice, the American way and other-good-
> things,that they are giving you a whole or accurate picture of
> the available evidence or even the actual claims made.
agreed
> Always
> go to the source, and try to get an independent opinion of just
> what the source is.
Of course, the optimal solution--go find out for yourself.
However, we must place a constraint of time on this. Each person
cannot independently investigate everything in the world, so
instead we must try our best to assess the credibility of others
making claims or conducting research for us. Several factors
effect credibility assessment, not the least of which is
determining if the "claimer" has anything to gain.
I have no fundamental disagreement with what you've presented as
the beginnings of the backdrop for how you make decisions. That's
a good sign. If we were in disagreement there it would be
impossible to even debate. Based on this so far, if it turns out
that we disagree about things, it will probably be in the
application to specific expamples, not the thought process itself.
Furthermore, based upon your "methodology" (rational, not blind
faith) you have a much higher likelihood of convincing me of new
beliefs than most. Faith and science don't speak the same
language.
I'll respond to other replies when I get some more time.
KC
|
| 1001.35 | Abracadabra! | USAT05::KASPER | This space intentionally left blank | Fri Mar 17 1989 10:01 | 7 |
| re: .34 (NEATO::CAMHI)
> To start with nothing and build up is impossible.
I can think of one possible exception. The Big Bang.
Terry
|
| 1001.36 | Demolition in Progress.. | AYOV18::BCOOK | Zaman, makan, ikhwan | Fri Mar 17 1989 12:46 | 16 |
| Re .34 (The castle Analogy...)
My own position is that I've spent the last few years dismantling
the castle, stone by stone (occasionally dropping one on my foot!)
That's not to say that I now believe anything (although I think
I would be happier if my brains did fall out!) but believing and/or
not believing is no longer as important to me as acceptance. I guess
in some ways I do believe anything/everything in that I can see
where it comes from, where it is and that having a 'position' on
something (by definition) is limiting.
When all that's left is the green field with nothing to stand in
the way of the wind, I guess I'll have no option but to spread my
wings (I hope they're ready in time) and fly,
Brian
|
| 1001.37 | A CONTROLLED STUDY ON PSYCHIC HEALING | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Fri Mar 17 1989 13:04 | 19 |
| Re: Commentary on psychic healing
NPR reported within the last two months on a physician who ran an
experiment with two groups of heart patients: a control group and a
group for whom several 'born-again' Christians prayed. According to
the report, the patients in the second group suffered a statistically
significant reduction in complications. I am not of the belief that
healing requires being 'born-again', (at least as defined by some
born-again Christians) but that was one of the parameters of the
experiment. I have long dreamed of running experiments along the
same lines.
I have personally experienced several instances of apparent healing,
along with lots of cases in which nothing happened that could not
be attributable to something else.
DR
|
| 1001.38 | _Margins of Reality_ | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Mar 17 1989 13:44 | 16 |
| RE: .24 (Donald Reinke)
I haven't read _Margins of Reality_ yet, but I am very familiar with
the work it reports on -- both from their technical reports and from
personal contact with the researchers (including a rather interesting
visit to the lab some years ago). I can answer any questions you may
have on it (and can forward to the researchers any that I can't
answer).
Let me say at the outset that while the Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research Lab has done some outstanding work, and has produced a set of
data which is particularly good for systematic analysis, it is not the
only, or even the best hard evidence for psi phenomena. I think that
they would agree with that statement.
Topher
|
| 1001.39 | Other References | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Fri Mar 17 1989 14:23 | 27 |
| Re: .38
_Margins of Reality_ contains a lot of material on a possible theory
that would account for paranormal phenomena, as well as several
quotes from the early researchers into atomic theory such as Heisenberg
Planck and Bohr.
In addition, there is a privately published book named _Operations of
Increasing Order_ by John Curtis Gowan which contains speculation on
several possible paradigms that might help understand psi phenomena. It
also contains a taxonomy of such experiences and a compendium of
largely anecdotal descriptions of experiences beyond the ordinary.
Gowan has done extensive work in educational psychology, including
studies of geniuses and other gifted people.
Finally, one should not omit the extensive work of Carl Jung into
all aspects of the psyche, including the paranormal.
Donald Reinke
I will include information about how to obtain a copy in a subsequent
note.
Topher, I'd be interested in the references for other hard data
to which you alluded.
Donald Reinke
|
| 1001.40 | Recommendations. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Mar 17 1989 19:46 | 9 |
| RE: .39 (Donald Reinke)
> I'd be interested in references for other hard data to which you
> alluded.
Notes 31.*, especially 31.3 contains recommended readings in
parapsychology.
Topher
|
| 1001.41 | no arguements there | NEATO::CAMHI | | Fri Mar 17 1989 20:52 | 12 |
|
Re .32 (Steve):
Frankly, given what you've said here about the way you reach
conclusions in adopting a belief set, I'd think that from a given
body of evidence our conclusions would be very similar. The only
things which I think would lead us to different conclusions are
seeing different bodies of evidence and the degree to which we
scrutinize that body of evidence, but not the thought process.
Keith
|
| 1001.42 | Second rate?!... Nah... | NEATO::CAMHI | | Fri Mar 17 1989 21:45 | 151 |
| re .33 (Professor Cooper)
> As a principle of critical thinking I give your FIRST PRINCIPLE a C-.
> As a principle of dogmatic conventionalism I give it a B. All
> alternate interpretations I could think of came out at least marginally
> worse.
A grade? How nice! I didn't realize this was a graded
conference! If I had known and if I knew you were the grader I
would have sent you an electronic apple over mail so I might have
done better. I've never gotten a C- before!
;-)
>RE: .0
>
> OK. Let's take a look at your FIRST PRINCIPLE. Since the wording is
> critical, and its brief, I'll quote it:
>
>> FIRST PRINCIPLE: Assume the least miraculous explanation.
>
> As a principle of critical thinking, much less the first of two singled
> out principles, this is distinctly weak.
I actually think it's quite strong because it's so simple but
weeds out so many of the easy cases. The problem, as you point
out in great detail, comes when you try to apply it to cases when
there is not a clearly more or less miraculous solution. The
reason I think you've taken such strong exception is that you may
feel that that is the only relevant realm of debate in the first
place, so it's a dumb principle because it won't be used in our
conclusion making. That's true between you and me in debate,
because you are a critical thinker too (which I would tentatively
define as an antonym to a blind-faith-believer).
> Your note .17 seems to deal essentially with what you mean by "assume".
> If forced to choose one of two exclusive actions to take based on the
> truth of one of two exclusive explanations for an event, choose that
> recommended by the explanation which is "least miraculous". I have no
> problem with this definition. Although its direct application is
> clearly limited to rather specialized circumstances it is also clearly
> generalizable to more complex situations of multiple weighted choice.
> So, if this is indeed close to what you intended then we don't have any
> essential disagreements with this part.
Good, because that's essentially what I mean.
> So now we get to the concept of "the least miraculous explanation".
> Let's pass on defining "explanation", the philosophers have been
> arguing about that one for at least 3,000 years and I feel no
> particular need to take sides there. Unless we get into trouble, I
> think that we can assume that our intuitions about what this means
> match well enough to allow communication.
Perhaps an example to make sure we are on the same ground here:
See a bright light in the sky. One "explanation" is that it's a
UFO, another "explanation" is that it isn't a UFO which includes
that it's a weather balloon, a plane, a star, etc.
Without more details, the latter is less miraculous and more
likely to be assumed.
>PRINCIPLE 1A: If one must choose between alternate explanations for an
>event -- choose that alternative which is more likely.
yes.
> But we're not really finished -- "least miraculous" has connotation as
> well as meaning; specifically it implies certain reality models, or
> more precisely it implies the rejection of certain other reality
> models. It alludes to the classic confrontations between religious
> faith and scientific "rationality".
yup.
> By choice of that word you bias
> your decisions away from explanations which resemble traditional
> religious explanations for physical phenomena and towards explanations
> consistent with 18th century natural philosophy (whose preferred modes
> of explanation were heavily influenced by a desire to draw a clear line
> of demarcation between "natural" and "supernatural" explanations).
yup.
> But how about these two:
>
> 1) There exists an unknown, though lawful and eventually knowable,
> physical mechanism which under the right conditions can create
> correlations between systems which are isolated (along all
> currently known causal connections) from each other.
>
> 2) A divinity student of good reputation quickly crossed a campus
> unobserved, took a chair from a classroom and spent a significant
> amount of time standing on that chair in a heavily traveled
> corridor, looking in through a transom into a professor's office
> (there is, by the way, no direct evidence or memory by anyone that
< could be found of the door actually having a transom) and taking
> notes. No one who observes him publicly questions his right to so
< publicly spy on a professor, or comes forward later when the
< results of the experiment become publicized. This was repeated on
> many occasions.
>
> Now which of *these* two explanations are *more likely*. Things are
> not so clear. We are comparing the likelihood that the current list of
> fundamental physical mechanisms is incomplete against the likelihood of
> a truly baroque set of coincidences protecting a student who took an
> extraordinary high risk of discovery and resulting discipline (if you
< don't think that a student found to be spying on a professor would be
< likely to face rather stiff discipline you don't know much about
> Universities, particularly southern universities in the '30s) for
> little apparent gain except the challenge and the reputation (never
> professionally used, I might add).
Fine. I have no problem with this.
Look, essentially what you're saying, it seems to me, is that my
"principle" is ok in some cases but it breaks down. I agree.
There are the fuzzy cases where you just don't know what is more
miraculous. That's when you pursue more evidence and more
thought.
As with Steve (see .41) I don't think our disagreements in
conclusions will be based on our reasoning mechanisms. Clearly you
think very logically about things and look for evidence and proof.
Our disagreements will come case-by-case, not on principle I don't
think. My intention here, and in my basenote was not to address
those who reason like you already. It was to address the other
(apparent majority) of the notes which seem not to, so that they
might understand the need to apply more thought to their beliefs
at times.
My other intention (of course) was to have a little fun in a
debate. ;-)
KC
|
| 1001.43 | A Key Difference | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Mon Mar 20 1989 15:17 | 8 |
| re: .37 (the NPR report about patients prayed for by "Born Agains"
vs the control group not prayed for)
Did the group that was being prayed for KNOW that they were being
prayed for?
Mary
|
| 1001.44 | DON'T KNOW WHO KNEW | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Mon Mar 20 1989 16:02 | 21 |
| Re: .43 -- A Key Difference
I'm pretty sure the people who prayed knew first names, but only
that; I don't know what any of the patients knew or what their volition
was regarding participation. If I were designing such an experiment,
I'd have the following groups:
Those who were asked and refused to participate except for
purposes of obtaining statistics.
Those who were asked and volunteered but were not prayed for
Those who were asked, volunteered and were prayed for
Double-blind techniques, wherein (if I understand it correctly) neither
the patient nor those in direct contact with them is informed of who's
in what category, would also be important.
It might occur to attempt to inhibit others from praying for any of the
participants. In addition to being impossible, I'd think anyone who
really believed in the power of prayer would also find it unethical.
DR
|
| 1001.45 | Who... | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Mar 20 1989 17:57 | 149 |
| RE: .34 (Keith)
> If you're saying that I've kept that belief set as prescribed by
> others, you're dead wrong (ignore the following if that's not what
> you meant).
Consider it ignored.
> If you're simply pointing out that my beliefs seem to correlate
> very highly with a group of others, I'd accept that (and I'd be
> interested to know who you think they are).
Close, but I mean a bit more.
There exists a "scientific establishment" and a "scientific orthodoxy".
I very carefully put those terms in quotes since they have been grossly
abused. That there is a scientific establishment does *not* mean that
there is any kind of conscious conspiracy to "suppress" new and
innovative ideas.
What there is, is a culture which quite actively discourages the
collection and dissemination of data about certain ostensible
phenomena. According to anonymous polls, many scientists are quite
open about the possibility of various "paranormal" phenomena (e.g.,
psi, cryptozoology, UFOs). Very few, however, are willing to say so
publicly -- much less publish "positive" results which they may have
produced in "midnight" experiments they have performed. (Anyone who
takes a positive, informed, public stance on the scientific legitimacy
of paranormal studies, has received many quiet testimonials from
scientists who believe in one phenomena or another as possible, likely
or virtually certain and have not publicly "come out" about it).
The reason is obvious from another poll -- one of "elite" scientists,
which essentially means people with power in the scientific community.
Unlike the "rank and file", they are, as a group, much less likely to
express belief or interest in the possibilities, and much more likely
to believe strongly in the lack of any foundation to paranormal claims.
Scientists who speak out in favor of even the possibility of what are
classed as "paranormal" phenomena are labeled as "irrational" by these
"elite" dogmatists and their rank-and-file supporters and find
advancement difficult.
And it is not just the dogmatists among the rank-and-file who cast the
stones. Unfortunately, others adopt protective coloration and may
become the most vociferous denouncers of those willing to state their
beliefs publicly (friends in the gay community tell me that this is a
familiar pattern).
The outcome is -- negative comments, however poorly supported, are
rewarded; positive comments, however rational the support are punished.
And this is, of course, self-perpetuating. Scientists rely on other
scientists with some degree of specialization to tell them about
discoveries of general interest. Those with expertise and a positive
interest have trouble getting access to public, scientific channels of
communication. While those with an ax to grind can freely publish
utter nonsense about "unorthodox science" without fear of correction.
This means that scientists are treated to a regular diet of negatives
(some valid and some not) but rarely if ever hear "the other side" --
or rather only hear it filtered through the National Enquirer, which is
worse (for some reason, perfectly rational scientists who would never
accept the tabloids word about, for example, what qualified MDs say
about two headed babies born saying the Lord's Prayer seem to have
complete trust in their reporting of parapsychologists' statements).
Here's an example: Dr. Irwin Child investigated how psychological
textbooks reported a series of parapsychology experiments which are
well regarded by parapsychologists -- the experiments in "Dream
Telepathy" at the Maimonides Dream Research Lab in New York. He found
eight (if I remember correctly) textbooks which mentioned it. All
introduced clear errors of facts into their descriptions and then used
those errors as the basis of negative evaluations. Interestingly, none
mentioned some actual errors in the experimental procedures which Dr.
Child has published (these force a somewhat weaker though still
strongly positive interpretation of the series of experiments).
Here's another one: Senator Pell of Rhode Island inquired of the NSF
if they were ready and willing to support any high quality
parapsychology experiments which were submitted to them. They replied
that they were. He inquired as to what parapsychologists they had
among their grant reviewers. They replied, "What for?" Senator Pell
responded that parapsychology grants should have at least one reviewer
trained in the area. They replied, "You want parapsychologists to help
judge the quality of proposed parapsychology grants!?". He replied,
"Only chemists review chemistry grants, only physicists review physics
grants, why shouldn't at least one parapsychologist review any
parapsychology grant application?" He reports that he never received
an answer.
> Of course, the optimal solution--go find out for yourself.
> However, we must place a constraint of time on this. Each person
> cannot independently investigate everything in the world, so
> instead we must try our best to assess the credibility of others
> making claims or conducting research for us. Several factors
Reasonable, but error-prone. And what I am saying is that this
reasonable policy does indeed lead to error in precisely these areas --
specifically an underevaluation of the quantity and quality of
evidence. In most cases, while the evidence is better than generally
represented in the scientific press, it is still, in my opinion,
insufficient to stand as proof of the existence of "paranormal"
phenomena. In some cases, however, again in my opinion, it is far
beyond the level which can be objectively deemed necessary to
substantiate the reality of the phenomena (which is not to knock
honest, *subjective*, rejection of that evidence -- scientific progress
usually occurs when someone is convinced of something beyond what is
justified by the evidence and then goes and gets the necessary evidence
to back up that belief).
As to who "they" are -- as a start ...
> _Science_and_the_Paranormal_ edited by George Abell and Barry
> Singer which is a collection of investigations of the
> supernatural covering a vast array of topics (many of which are
> discussed in this notes file). Section authors include Isaac
> Asimov, Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, James Randi,
> etc.
All the people you mention are associated with CSICOP (the Committee
for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) with the exception
of George Abell (who used to be, but is no longer, apparently, active;
note that Philip Klass is Philip J. Klass the engineer/aerospace writer
not Philip Klass the English Professor who published science-fiction
under the pseudonym William Tenn). If I am not mistaken the book is
published by Prometheus Books which is the personal publishing house of
the CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz.
This is an organization which was founded about a decade ago ostensibly
to combat public "pseudoscience". It started as fairly militantly, and
the few more moderate voices (e.g., co-founder Marcello Truzzi) were
quickly forced out. While they do indeed do much good work in
providing information instead of speculation, they are committed, as a
body, to making sure that only "real science" (i.e., that which comes
up with the "right" answers) gets seen. A number of well-meaning
scientists have ended up associating themselves with CSICOP in the
interest of support for their own campaigns (e.g., creationism) and
either accept blindly the pronouncements of the "pro-science" experts
outside their areas of expertise or put up with them as necessary in
producing a united front.
A few more prominent names: F.H.C. Crick, L. Sprague de Camp, Murray
Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, C.E.M. Hansel, Ray Hyman, Douglas
Hofstadter, W.V. Quine, and B.F. Skinner. Another prominent critic of
paranormal sciences (specifically parapsychology) is the statistician
Persei Diaconis who is not associated with CSICOP (apparently because
he does not agree with the general air of militancy).
Topher
|
| 1001.46 | Some words of caution. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Mar 20 1989 18:27 | 47 |
| RE: .37 (DR), .43 (Mary), .44 (DR)
Experiments like these are quite hard to do right and many subtly
flawed experiments in paranormal healing have been publicized in
the past (along with a few seemingly good ones). Although on the
basis of the few good experiments which have been done in the past, I
would not be surprised if this experiment were both positive and
well done, I would be even less surprised if the experiment were flawed
so that no conclusions could be drawn. If and when I see a proper
technical account of the experiment I will post my opinions of it
(I didn't catch the NPR story -- did anyone who heard it notice where
it was to be published).
RE: .43 (specifically)
I doubt that an experiment which didn't at least have the appearance of
being double-blind would have gotten on All Things Considered (I assume
it was ATC) at all -- they do have competent science reporters on their
staff.
The first group would not generally be considered part of the
experiment at all, though it would be likely that their number would
be reported as an item of side-issue. If the request were properly
made I doubt that many people would refuse inclusion in the test.
It would be a no-lose situations.
Even those who believe that prayer has no real healing power would
consider requesting that no friends and/or relatives pray as unethical.
The power of prayer to provide comfort to the ill and their loved-ones
is entirely uncontroversial, and the effectiveness of the mere request
in providing any guarentee of the condition would make it useless
anyway. The affect of "uncontrolled" prayer would be to weaken the
difference between the test and control groups (at most, if prayer
works additively or multiplicatively then it would not even do this)
and so weakens *negative* conclusions which could be drawn from the
experiment, but has not affect on any positive conclusions. But
general negative conclusions could not be drawn anyway -- this is
essentially an experiment which attempts to falsify the belief that
prayer of and by itself cannot effect patient outcome. Failure to
falsify in no sense proves. The only desire to restrict uncontrolled
prayer would therefore be to improve the sensitivity of the test, rather
than its validity. Personally, I would attempt to select subjects
(both conditions, of course) from "non-religious" backgrounds, unless
I wished to study that as a secondary variable.
Topher
|
| 1001.47 | At best second rate. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Mar 21 1989 21:02 | 107 |
| RE: .42 (Keith):
> A grade? How nice! I didn't realize this was a graded
> conference! ...
>
> ;-)
Didn't they warn you about the pop quizzes? :-)
> I actually think it's quite strong because it's so simple but
> weeds out so many of the easy cases. The problem, as you point
> out in great detail, comes when you try to apply it to cases when
> there is not a clearly more or less miraculous solution.
I don't think so. I seem to have completely failed to get across
what I was trying to communicate. I'll take another stab at it.
The problem with my extracted principle 1A is that it is, although true
and necessary for formal mathematical development, almost entirely
useless.
For virtually all situations of interest (and I am not assuming a
debate with a "critical thinker") both sides will believe that the
principle proves *their* side, and in a sense they are right. In
practice "more likely" is defined to mean "which would you choose".
Thus if you are debating with someone who believes the pyramids were
created by ancient astronauts, *their* argument is likely to be, at
its root -- "I believe that it is more likely that ancient astronauts
helped erect the pyramids than that primitive humans without
sophisticated technology were able to."
PRINCIPLE 1A is a basic principle of non-critical thinking as well as
of critical thinking. Hence it is virtually worthless.
Furthermore to the extent that your PRINCIPLE 1 goes beyond my variant
1A is the extent to which it is actively *antithetical* to critical
thinking.
The reason "it's so simple but weeds out so many of the easy cases" is
because it dispenses with the "bother" of actually doing any critical
thinking. It has exactly the same logical validity as the following:
PRINCIPLE 1X: Assume that explanation which reflects the greater
glory of God.
Of course, your FIRST PRINCIPLE agrees more often with that derived
from a process of critical thinking than does 1X, but --
TOPHER'S SECOND PRINCIPLE OF CRITICAL THINKING: Getting the "right"
answer does not justify a line of reasoning; especially when the
"right" answer is the subject of dispute.
Your FIRST PRINCIPLE asks one to make a "gut" assessment, on the basis
of relative *resemblance* to religious beliefs, and then only if there
is some degree of indecision at that "gut" level does one go to the
"bother" making a critical assessment.
I must say I was surprised when you coolly agreed that your FIRST
PRINCIPLE was based on an appeal to the relative *resemblance* of the
explanations to a standard derived in large part from essentially
political disputes of almost a quarter of a millennium ago. Clearly
resemblance is no basis for critical assessment.
That gets us to:
TOPHER'S THIRD PRINCIPLE OF CRITICAL THINKING: Explanations should
only be evaluated on the basis of their own quality. The source,
form, language, purpose, etc. are irrelevant except as they help us
to better understand what the explanation actually is.
You seem to have missed the point of my two versions of the Hansel vs
Pearce-Pratt example. In *both* pairs the second explanation is
clearly and unmistakably the less miraculous. There is simply nothing
miraculous about a student happening to not get caught during hours
spent peering through a transom into a professor's office. It is
simply an outlandish coincidence and outlandish coincidences are
virtually certain to occur sometimes. Unless he required bilocation
or teleportation to accomplish his spying the extra details are
completely irrelevant to determining its degree of miraculousness.
Let's get rid of your FIRST PRINCIPLE and replace it with:
TOPHER'S FOURTH PRINCIPLE OF CRITICAL THINKING (a.k.a., the
Principle of Parsimony and Occam's Razor): Prefer the globally
simpler explanation.
(Note that I have disposed of the improperly polarizing verb "assume"
and that I added the adverb "globally" to the usual statement of this
principle. This
is to emphasize that the simplicity meant is that which applies to
the entire world-view. Gods building the pyramids are locally simpler
because they avoid having to deal with all the details of how hard
labor and relatively "simple" technology could accomplish the task.
It is, however, globally less simple since one must "add" to ones
world-view specific, powerful supernatural beings, a large increase
in complexity.)
The Principle of Parsimony covers every case where your FIRST PRINCIPLE
is right and furthermore handles the cases where your FIRST PRINCIPLE
is wrong. It is no less subjective, but its subjectivity is explicit
-- to invoke the principle you must articulate the assumptions you
have made in comparing the relative simplicities. It does not rely
on the connotations of a purely emotive word. It does take more work
to apply, however.
Topher
|
| 1001.48 | Small deviation from topic at hand | CLUE::PAINTER | Wage Peace | Tue Mar 21 1989 21:04 | 14 |
|
Re.42 (Camhi)
Hi! RE: Grading
Don't feel badly - my manager recently took over the technical
documentation group which consists of 2 writers. He held a staff
meeting with them, handed them a memo that he had written and asked
them to take a look at it.
They both pulled out their pencils and started correcting it. (;^)
Cindy
|
| 1001.49 | but people LOVE miracles | NEATO::CAMHI | | Thu Mar 23 1989 20:43 | 97 |
| re .45 (Topher)
> If I am not mistaken the book [Science and the Paranormal] is
> published by Prometheus Books which is the personal publishing house of
> the CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz.
It's published by Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981, $12.95.
> As to who "they" are -- as a start ...
>
>> _Science_and_the_Paranormal_ edited by George Abell and Barry
>> Singer which is a collection of investigations of the
>> supernatural covering a vast array of topics (many of which are
>> discussed in this notes file). Section authors include Isaac
>> Asimov, Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, James Randi,
>> etc.
.
.
.
> they are committed, as a
> body, to making sure that only "real science" (i.e., that which comes
> up with the "right" answers) gets seen.
Except for Carl Sagan, I know none of the authors, so I can't
really evaluate their intentions. However, after a few months of
seminars with prof. Sagan, I got the feeling that he is not out
to destroy/hide any evidence, just destroy faulty reasoning. I
think he wants to find out the truth about all issues and he
doesn't draw conclusions where there is insufficient evidence.
But he asks the same of others.
I think your view of the intentions of these people has been
influenced by the differences you have with their conclusions.
This is human nature. It is a constant facet of international
history (the opposition is always dishonest, immoral, evil,
etc.).
re .47 (Topher)
> For virtually all situations of interest (and I am not assuming a
> debate with a "critical thinker") both sides will believe that the
> principle proves *their* side, and in a sense they are right. In
> practice "more likely" is defined to mean "which would you choose".
> Thus if you are debating with someone who believes the pyramids were
> created by ancient astronauts, *their* argument is likely to be, at
> its root -- "I believe that it is more likely that ancient astronauts
> helped erect the pyramids than that primitive humans without
> sophisticated technology were able to."
> [etc.]
You make an excellent point here. If our definitions of what is
more or less miraculous is different, we'll arrive at different
conclusions based on my first principle.
You are stating that my conclusion from P1 can differ from yours
given the same evidence but a different conception of the
miraculous. You are right. No question.
But what I'm trying to point out is that it is my experience that
individuals often don't reach *personal* conclusions based upon P1
even within their possibly flawed set of views on relative
miraculousness. Many people, in practice, actually like to believe
that which is most miraculous. It makes for the best stories!
"Confirmations" spread like fire (see intro of _When Prophesy
Fails_) but failures are boring. There is a certain personal
excitement in people telling of something miraculous, even at the
cost of forgetting a few possibly disconfirming pieces of
evidence. We must be aware of this in hearing "evidence" too.
Principle 1 is meant to be a blinding flash of the obvious in
personal conclusion drawing. It says "wait, think about this a
second before I go running and telling everyone that the light
I just saw in the sky was definitely a UFO."
I fully grant that conclusions will be flawed by inaccurate
assumptions of miraculousness, but in general for reaching
personal decisions it is better to assume the less miraculous
than the more miraculous. Wouldn't you agree?
Furthermore, I think there is an awful lot of overlap among
people as to what they consider more or less miraculous. Given
that, the limitations against the extendibility of P1 to a group
setting are, themselves, limited. I think most people, for
instance, think that in day-to-day life, it is more miraculous to
see a UFO than a weather balloon, and given evidence that a
weather balloon was in the vicinity of a UFO citing, most people
adhering to P1 would tend to dismiss the conclusion that it was a
UFO.
KC
|
| 1001.50 | on opinions... | LESCOM::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Fri Mar 24 1989 11:57 | 122 |
| Re .49 (Keith):
>Except for Carl Sagan, I know none of the authors, so I can't
>really evaluate their intentions....
>I think your view of the intentions of these people has been
>influenced by the differences you have with their conclusions.
>This is human nature. It is a constant facet of international
>history (the opposition is always dishonest, immoral, evil,
>etc.).
Again, I hope you'll be able to read "sTARBABY," by Dennis Rawlings,
one of the founders of CSICOP. In it, he details a clear case of
an attempted coverup of something, as I noted before, that was at
odds with a world-view that rejects all paranormal events.
More recently was a case where the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences held a press conference to discuss
a report on a study commissioned by the U.S. Army. One area of
the study concerned parapsychology, and was very negative; however,
the report was so biased in the view of parapsychologists, that
a special report was prepared by the Parapsychological Association.
Some excerpts from that report (high spots of high spots):
o The two principal evaluators of parapsychological; research
for the committee, Ray Hyman and James Alcock, were publicly
committed to a negative position on parapsychology at the time
the Committee was formed. Both are members of the Executive
Council of an organization well-known for its zealous crusade
against parapsychology. [CSICOP --sk] Yet no attempt was made
to balance the Committee with scientists who have taken a more
positive or neutral position on parapsychology.
o The report selectively omits important findings favorable to
parapsychology contained in one of the background papers
commissioned for the Committee. The principle author of the
favorable paper, an eminent Harvard psychologist, was actually
asked by the Chairman of the NRC Committee to withdraw his
favorable conclusions.
".... Belief in paranormal phenomena is still growing, and the
dangers to our society are real. ...[I]n these days of government
budget-cutting the Defense Department may be spending millions of
dollars on developing `psychic arms ...' Please help us in this
battle against the irrational. Your contribution, in any amount,
will help us grow and be better able to combat the flood of belief
on the paranormal...."
- ... excerpt .. from a fund-raising letter
... from ... CSICOP, dated March 23, 1985,
and co-signed by Ray Hyman, Chairman of
the NRC Committee on Parapsychological
Techniques.
[Note: the date was long before the report.]
"... We contend that the NRC report exemplifies the Committee's
need to protect _their_ beliefs. Both Hyman, Chairman of the NRC
Parapsychology Subcommittee, and Alcock (1988), author of the only
paper specifically on Parapsychological Techniques to be commissioned
by the Committee, belong to CSICOP's Executive Council and are among
its most active members. ...
CSICOP is well known for its efforts to debunk Parapsychology.
It was founded in 1976 by philosopher Paul Kurtz and sociologist
Marcello Truzzi, when, "Kurtz became convinced that the time was
ripe for a more active crusade against parapsychology and other
pseudo-sciences (Pinch and Collins, 1984, p.527). Truzzi resigned
in 1977 "because of what he saw as the growing danger of the
committee's excessive negative attitude at the expense of responsible
scholarship (Collins and Pinch, 1982, p.42). ... In their own
literature, CSICOP makes clear their belief that claims for paranormal
phenomena are unreasonable: "Why the sudden explosion of interest,
_even among some otherwise sensible people_, on all sorts of paranormal
`happenings'?" (CSICOP brochure, emphasis added.
Alcock [who was to evaluate the studies involving parapsychology]
expressed the ... view [that any scientist finding evidence favorable
to the existence of psychic phenomena were fooling themselves, writing]
colorfully:
"Parapsychology is indistinguishable from pseudo-science, and
its ideas are essentially those of magic. This does not of course
mean that psi does not exist, for one cannot demonstrate the
non-existence of psi any more than one can prove the non-existence
of Santa Claus. But let there be no mistake about the empirical
evidence: There is _no_ evidence that would lead the cautious
observer to believe that parapsychologists are on the track
of a real phenomenon, a real energy or power that has so far
escaped the attention of those people engaged in `normal' science.
There is considerable reason, on the other hand, to believe
that human desire and self-delusion are responsible for the
durability of parapsychology as a formal endeavor (p. 196 [of
the report] emphasis in the original)
______________________________
The above copyright 1988 by the Parapsychological Association.
Excerpted for data only.
References:
Collins, H.M & Pinch, T.J. (1982) _Frames of Meaning: The Social
Construction of Extraordinary Science_. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Pinch, T.J. & Collins, H.M. (1984) Private science and public
knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation for Claims
of the Paranormal and its use of literature. _Social Studies
of Science. 14, 521-546
Truzzi, M (1982) Editorial. _Zetetic Scholar_ No. 9 March 1982
pp. 3-5
__________________________________
In the light of these writings by high CSICOP officials, is it so
unreasonable for parapsychologists to feel that CSICOP does little
to justify making _honest_ evaluations of paranormal phenomena?
I think these citations go beyond "the opposition is evil" type
discussions. As was once said, "Just because you may be paranoid
doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you." ;-)
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.51 | Major truths tend to surface | NEATO::CAMHI | | Fri Mar 24 1989 20:38 | 66 |
| 1001.52 | Motives, Other than money... | CIMNET::PIERSON | Milwaukee Road Track Inspector | Sat Mar 25 1989 18:29 | 27 |
| (and coming in from left field, one of the other "conventionalists"...)
A though on examing motivation. I would agree that "look to see
where the moent is", is a good rule. However, a much more powerful
influencer, for many people, is (percieved) serious threat to a deeply
held belief system. The most classic historical cases generally
involve reactions to attacks on "religious" belief systems.
However, "science" and especially "conventional science" are (is?)
also a belief system. (Some of) Those who "believe" can and will
do "wrong" things: lie, cover up, invent, to "defend" against a
percieved attack on "their" beliefs.
Example:
Without considering all of Velikovsky's theorys (some/most of which
are likely wrong...), the treatment he recieved from "conventional
science", and its side effects, may well have held up study of
continental drift for years.
Now, I can't comment on CSICOP, except what Topher has cited in
this file. However, I do "strongly believe" that "scientists"
are people, too. This, I think, means they can get tied up in
their beliefs.
thanks
dave pierson
("conventionalist", but willing to listen...)
|
| 1001.53 | Resisting Change in Beliefs | NEATO::CAMHI | | Mon Mar 27 1989 12:58 | 21 |
| re .52
I agree with you. Scientists are just as fallable as anyone in
holding on to a belief system. For really big changes in scientific
thought it historically has taken a generation of scientists to
die off before the new theories could take hold.
Believers in the supernatural may quickly pick up on this as a reason
for the supernatural not yet being understood by scientists and for a
hope that it is just on the verge of being so. However, many
supernatural beliefs have been around a lot longer than continental
drift or relativity or theories of the earth orbiting the sun were
around before they were "accepted."
If science had resisted these beliefs as hard as beliefs in the
supernatural yet the "truth" (or a more complete model at least)
has come forward in all of those cases, why is it that the supernatural
beliefs haven't overcome the scientists resistance?
Keith
|
| 1001.54 | more to come... | LESCOM::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Mon Mar 27 1989 21:23 | 74 |
| 1001.55 | Which doesn't mean they don't exist. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Mar 27 1989 22:22 | 84 |
| RE: .49 (Keith) on .47 (me)
Keith, I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy. You are still
not addressing yourself to what I said.
SUMMARY (as I see it):
You presented what you termed a principle of critical thinking -- P1.
If we Interpret P1 literally it is an absolutely terrible principle
for critical thinking. This being a friendly conference, both Steve
Kallis and I looked for interpretations which were more acceptable.
Steve suggested the vaguely similar standard principle -- the Principle
of Parsimony or Occam's Razor as an interpretation, but you rejected
it out of hand.
That left me having to stretch a bit further to find an acceptable
interpretation. I came up with principle P1A, which substituted
"more likely" for "less miraculous". I pointed out that there were
two difficulties: (1) while P1A was consistent with critical thinking,
unlike P1, it was also consistent with almost every other mode of
thinking, almost by definition, and (2) that a statement of a principle
(assuming that P1A was what you meant by P1 ) -- especially one of
critical thinking -- should not be so misleading and hard to interpret.
You agreed with P1A (I quote: "Yup" :-) but continue to insist on the
importance of exactly those characteristics of P1 which make it a
poor (to say the least) principle for critical thinking.
END OF SUMMARY
> You are stating that my conclusion from P1 can differ from yours
> given the same evidence but a different conception of the
> miraculous. You are right. No question.
>
> But what I'm trying to point out is that it is my experience that
> individuals often don't reach *personal* conclusions based upon P1
> even within their possibly flawed set of views on relative
> miraculousness.
I agree with you that there will not be much disagreement on what is
more or less "miraculous", but I was not speaking about judgements of
relative "miraculousness", I was speaking of judgements of relative
liklihood. I was talking about P1A not P1.
> I fully grant that conclusions will be flawed by inaccurate
> assumptions of miraculousness, but in general for reaching
> personal decisions it is better to assume the less miraculous
> than the more miraculous. Wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely. I also believe that it is generally better to shoot
yourself in the foot than to shoot yourself in the head, but that
does not mean I recommend shooting yourself in the foot. Assuming
things -- especially on the basis of having deliberately caste the
issue into emotional terms which deliberately invoke culturally
determined stereotyped responses -- is *not* critical thinking it is
*antithetical* to critical thinking.
> Principle 1 is meant to be a blinding flash of the obvious in
> personal conclusion drawing.
In other words it is meant to substitute an intuitive, purely emotional
response for a critical, carefully considered one.
> It says "wait, think about this a
> second before I go running and telling everyone that the light
> I just saw in the sky was definitely a UFO."
Now *there* you are saying something useful, but it is something
very, very different from what you have said before (including in
the previous sentence, where you spoke of drawing conclusions).
In a finite lifetime with finite resources we cannot consider every
question completely from an ideal, critical framework. We therefore
need heuristics to tell us when it is worth the effort to apply the
principles of critical thinking. So I will accept "Distrust the
seemingly miraculous" as a reasonable "pre-critical-thinking"
heuristic -- as a way of telling you when to start applying critical
thinking.
But if you use the heuristic to reach conclusions, or even let it
bias your evaluation then you have left critical thinking and moved
to dogmatic scientism. And your P1 as it stands is an exhortation
to do just that.
Topher
|
| 1001.56 | BELIEVING IS SEEING | WMOIS::REINKE | S/W Manufacturing Technologies | Tue Mar 28 1989 14:05 | 27 |
|
As minds go, I've got a pretty good one, yet in my personal experience,
I have found that things I thought I was pretty clear on had hidden
flaws of logic. These flaws related to what I wanted to believe more
than what the evidence by itself might have warranted. The mind is a
pretty slippery thing, in my opinion, and strict logic isn't much help.
In fact, I've come rather to attempt to see first my predeliction and
then I look to my logic. I have watched myself and others rationalize
all sorts of things. When I see histories of the Nazi horrors, for
example, I must confess, "There but for the Grace of God go I."
That's were logic uninformed by the spirit can lead.
As for the foregoing discussion, a very high portion of the miraculous
things I hear about sound like bunk to me. Yet knowing the limitations
of my mind, I accept them as possibilities. I accept even more
strongly that _SOMETHING_ happened during the reported event, even
though the interpretation given may be colored by greed, gullibility
or desire to participate in the miraculous, or perhaps a desire
NOT to participate in the miraculous.
I often muse about our basic mechanism for sight. In one experiment
for which I have only a secondary reference, it's reported to have
been shown that more information passes from the brain to the visual
cortex than from the eyes! From this I conclude that believing
is seeing, not the other way 'round.
Donald Reinke
|
| 1001.57 | ... some more ... | LESCOM::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Tue Mar 28 1989 21:15 | 47 |
| Re .53 (Keith):
>Believers in the supernatural may quickly pick up on this as a reason
>for the supernatural not yet being understood by scientists and for a
>hope that it is just on the verge of being so. However, many
>supernatural beliefs have been around a lot longer than continental
>drift or relativity or theories of the earth orbiting the sun were
>around before they were "accepted."
Okay; here we must throw in an oar. "Supernatural" is such a
loose-goose term that it can cover many things. The parapsychologist
investigating PK doesn't think of it as "supernatural" in the sense
of elves, ghosts, and the like (this is a simplification); rather,
it's a manifestation of a yet-to-be-fully-understood phenomenon.
An ancient primitive didn't have to know about the thermal
conductivity of wood, the theory of oxidation, or the coefficient
of friction of wood to use friction to start a fire. The early
man _employed_ something yet to be understood.
If there is such a thing as "magic," (another loaded term) it would
have to follow laws as exacting as those found in aerodynamics or
wave propagation. P. A. M. Dirac developed a way to create
antiparticles by positing a continuum that is at sharp variance
with "reality" -- yet it worked. Some paranormal phenomena may
follow models we haven't completed yet.
>If science had resisted these beliefs as hard as beliefs in the
>supernatural yet the "truth" (or a more complete model at least)
>has come forward in all of those cases, why is it that the supernatural
>beliefs haven't overcome the scientists resistance?
"Science" is a way to systems and apply data. Again, "the
supernatural," as a grossly overloaded term, includes both wheat
and (lots more) chaff. A problem is that if one rejects out of
turn a phenomenon because it seems to have a "supernatural" aspect,
one could be overlooking something with great potential.
Re "UFO" sightings: "UFO" has two meanings. One is "alien craft,
probably spacecraft"; the other is "something traveling through
the that hasn't been identified, probably material." If I say I
saw a UFO, it would mean that I saw something I couldn't identify;
it would _not_ mean that I'd necessarily assume it was a spacecraft,
or, for that matter, even solid.
Remember my precept about keeping an open mind.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.58 | Some New and Improved Principles | NEATO::CAMHI | | Wed Mar 29 1989 19:45 | 84 |
|
re .55 (Topher)
I'm afraid that I've been unclear and too general.
Let me see if you agree with the following in which case I'd like
to move off of theoretical backdrop of how to think critically and
move onto some of the more meaty stuff that has started to surface
in .5* about why many paranormal phenomena have not been generally
"accepted" if they really exist.
--------------------------------------------------
New and Improved Principles:
NIP1) For any *given, static* set of evidence at some *fixed* time,
one should tend to accept the least miraculous explanation.
NIP2) Rule 1 is not a substitute for further investigation to
determine which explanation is indeed true.
--------------------------------------------------
#1 is your "shooting yourself in the foot and not the head" for
any given evidence set in reaching a temporary conclusion: don't
choose a more miraculous explanation over a less miraculous
explanation for no reason
#2 says continue to critically search for the truth
--------------------------------------------------
An example.
Two chemists insert a conducting wire of a specific composition
into a chemical variation of water and observe that the heat
released is more than would be expected by currently accepted
laws.
Although they have not specifically tested for it, they claim to
have discovered a way to create a fusion reaction with simple
tools--a feat that has alluded physicists for some time.
A critical thinking physicist responds that there are a number of
ways which such a result (greater than expected heat) could have
happened which are less miraculous than fusion. Thus he will
continue to be skeptical of the conclusion that it is actually
fusion UNTIL more evidence to show that it is fusion is produced.
He will remain opened to the possibility that it could be fusion,
but is not convinced and isn't ready to bet on it at even odds.
(If you'd agree with the physicist's line of thinking, I think we
agree even if we're using different terms)
--------------------------------------------------
I think a reason disagreement came about is the difference between
drawing a conclusion about a one time event (e.g., explanation of
a suggested alien spaceship sighting) and drawing a conclusion
about the existence/non-existence of some sort of phenomenon
(e.g., the whether alien spaceships exist at all).
Non-repeatablity limits the data gathering possibilities in the
former case and hence limits the availability of skeptical tools
that would fall into group 2 above.
--------------------------------------------------
If you buy this, I'll move on and point to some more specific
questions.
--------------------------------------------------
A terminology quibble: I'd still call #1 (up top) a part of
critical thinking. I never meant it to be an exclusive principle
of critical thinking, but it is certainly more critical than its
reverse (assuming the more miraculous for a given evidence set).
Also, I don't think I ever really dismissed Ockham's Razor. I
just said it wasn't what I was talking about in a certain
instance. I think you dismissed it on my behalf and I just never
responded to that.
|
| 1001.59 | "Miraculousness" | NEATO::CAMHI | | Wed Mar 29 1989 19:57 | 9 |
|
I don't mean to be loading the word "miraculous" with religious vs.
scientific meaning. I "yupped" your statement about that as the origin
because I agree that the efforts of people to think critically about
religious miracles is a predecessor of my thinking here. This is
because I agree extensively with Hume's points on religion in "Of
Miracles" as previously cited.
Keith
|
| 1001.60 | ok to Ockham | NEATO::CAMHI | | Wed Mar 29 1989 20:58 | 10 |
| re 1012.5 (Topher) and 1001.*
Well, now that you've expanded on the term "simpler" in Ockham's razor
with the example, it's really what I've meant by "miraculous." I had
been giving too little meaning to what you've all meant by "simpler"
and I think you've been attaching too much to what I mean by
miraculous.
KC
|
| 1001.61 | An elucidation | TOLKIN::CLARKE | | Fri Mar 31 1989 13:48 | 16 |
|
re .58
>a feat that has alluded physicists for some time.
An interesting concept that---imagine a theoretical concept such as nuclear
fusion just hanging around with its buddies refering to physicists
indirectly (allude).
Perhaps you meant elude? If you are trying to 'sell' critical thinking
about the world, your arguments will be more powerful if that critical
rigor is used with the English language. Perhaps this sounds like nit-
picking, but i'm skeptical when 'critical thinking' is selective.
Lee
|
| 1001.62 | sppelling was nevr a forte | NEATO::CAMHI | | Fri Mar 31 1989 17:34 | 11 |
| re .61
:-)
Thanks Lee. Yes, I noticed the "alluded" right after I had F10'ed
the note--it made it through the spell checker of course and I didn't
know how to get it back to change it.
Since my job must take priority over the notes file, I hope that
missing the finishing touches won't be such a big deal.
|
| 1001.63 | Some barbed comments. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Mar 31 1989 21:38 | 88 |
| RE: .58 (Keith)
> Also, I don't think I ever really dismissed Ockham's Razor. I just said
> it wasn't what I was talking about in a certain instance.
I never thought anything else. Sorry if it seemed that I was saying
otherwise. I just meant to say that you "rejected it [as an equivalent
statement to your P1] out of hand."
RE: .58, .59, .60 (Keith)
OK, I'll let you off the hook, except --
It seems that that was not a hook at all but simply one barb on a much
larger hook.
You quite consistently use terms in describing the problem to be solved
in terms which strongly presume a solution.
Example 1: in P1 you choose to use the term "miraculous" with
all of its religious connotation rather than any one of a
number of equally appropriate but less biasing terms. You
resisted quite vehemently any suggestion that such a word is
incompatible with the goals of critical thinking.
Example 2: Throughout the discussion you "slip" and use the
terms "supernatural" and "paranormal" interchangeably. I
rather suspect that you regard the words as virtually
synonymous. While generally applied to the same phenomenon
the words represent an entirely different attitude towards
those phenomenon. To call something "supernatural" is to say
that it is beyond "natural law". It is, at root, a religious
term. Paranormal, on the other hand, simply expresses the
concept that the phenomenon in question demonstrates an
incompleteness in our current understanding of fundamental
scientific law. For example, in the light (so to speak) of
Special Relativity we can see that the results of the
Michelson/Morely experiment were paranormal (though are no longer
so).
Example 3: At one point (sorry, forget which note) you refer
to "faith healing." Here we have a double connotation.
Originally the term was used by Christian fundamentalists to
describe the power of the faith in God to heal especially if
mediated by a "man of God" with a special calling to catalyze
such healing. So once again we have a strong religious
connotation. In addition it has come to refer to any healing
procedure whose efficacy depends purely or principally on the
healee's faith via the placebo effect. The use of the term
therefore presumes the (conventionally explained) mechanism
by which it operates.
Words are powerful controllers of our thoughts. Many psychological
experiments have demonstrated that when a particular word is used
its connotations strongly influence our thinking, even when the
connotation is from a completely different meaning of the word.
All protestations of "not paying attention to the connotations"
are bunk. The best known experiments along these lines are the
ones which have demonstrated that despite claims that "man" can
mean person and "he" can mean person-sex-undetermined, people act
very consistently as if they referred only to males. But it has
also been demonstrated in more subtle and less emotionally and
politically sensitive contexts.
Use of such biased terms is sloppy and prejudices ones thinking in
a way which is incompatible with critical thinking. More often
than not the choice of words *reflects* a prejudice in addition to
reinforcing or creating one.
That brings us to:
TOPHER'S FIFTH PRINCIPLE OF CRITICAL THINKING: Describe things
in as neutral a way as you can manage, unless you have
consciously decided to make an assumption.
and to:
COROLLARY TO TOPHER'S FIFTH PRINCIPLE OF CRITICAL THINKING:
Listen to the words people use to describe things -- these are
better indications of their biases than their protestations of
neutrality or objectivity.
Sorry if this is out of line Keith, but there seems to be such a
clear pattern (perhaps deceptively so) that I can't resist
commenting -- You seem to like to put things in terms of
"science" vs "religion" with "science" as the definite "good-guy".
Topher
|
| 1001.64 | hello again | NEATO::CAMHI | | Thu Apr 20 1989 17:06 | 62 |
| please excuse my delay in responding...
re .63 (Topher)
> OK, I'll let you off the hook...
I hate to let you down like this Topher... but I'm not that
concerned about being on or off your hook ;-)... so feel free to
hook away... although I do feel that a lot of what you hook is
nit-picky and missing the bigger issue:
re: general
To me what's on the hook is when blind-faith is cloaked within a
false sense of science.
When it's faith, admit it's faith and realize the implications
(e.g., submitting to a phony faith healer in a life-threatening
situation when real medical treatment can help).
re: .63
> Sorry if this is out of line
Not at all. It's useful to see what others consider to be a bias.
> You seem to like to put things in terms of
> "science" vs. "religion" with "science" as the definite "good-guy".
I'm sure it appears that I do just that. My intent is to pit
reason against faith (actually, faith cloaked in flawed reason
since faith cannot be argued against in a logical way, see
1016.*). The by-product is no surprise. Science is the
embodiment of the search for truth through the application of
reason to experience. Religion is often very strongly tied to
faith--believing something with no logical basis for that belief.
re: general
I'd anticipate two camps of responses to this (assuming the
conversation doesn't re-digress into a discussion of wording):
A. The first says "don't get so hung up on logic, some things cannot
be known within these constraints" (i.e., faith)
B. The second says "for many of the phenomena which are spoken about
in this conference there is ample scientifically valid evidence
which the scientific community is ignoring"
If these are the only two camps of response, I doubt I can go any
further with this topic.
- Keith
|
| 1001.65 | There are more things on this earth than is found in thy philosophy | LESCOM::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason. | Thu Apr 20 1989 19:39 | 82 |
| Re .64 (Keith):
>To me what's on the hook is when blind-faith is cloaked within a
>false sense of science.
Quoi? What, prithee, constitutes "a false sense of science"? If
by that you imply that, say, rigorous testing for say, PK, using
scientific methodology, is a manifestation of a false sense of science,
I'd suggest that is in error.
Additionally, let's say someone has a talent for, say, dowsing.
There are several hypotheses for methods of dowsing, but they can
be broken down into two categories:
a) the dowser's mind, or some hidden sense actually detects
the water or whatever, and the unconscious mind tricks
the dowser into thinking the dowsing rod is bending; and
b) there is some energy that affects the rod; an energy yet
to be detected by conventional instrumentation.
A third alternative is that there's no such ability. To people
who won't consider the _possibility_ that dowsing is a valid ability
will, in face of an apparently successful dowser, say something
on the order of, "Well, if you drill down far enough, you're _bound_
to hit water." That, too, is an act of blind faith.
>When it's faith, admit it's faith and realize the implications
>(e.g., submitting to a phony faith healer in a life-threatening
>situation when real medical treatment can help).
When it's a semantic stab at stealing a base, admit it's an attempt
to steal a base, and realize the implications. In the example you've
set up, that the faith healing is "phony" is a given. Further,
that medical help available for the life-threatening condition ("real"
medical treatment) "can help." Earlier in the responses, I gave
a case of a person who might have an inoperable, terminal cancer
that no known medical treatment can cure. I suggested that then
going to a faith healer would be no worse than getting ineffectual
medical treatment. In short, under _those_ circumstances, it couldn't
hurt.
>I'm sure it appears that I do just that. My intent is to pit
>reason against faith (actually, faith cloaked in flawed reason
>since faith cannot be argued against in a logical way, see
>1016.*). The by-product is no surprise. Science is the
>embodiment of the search for truth through the application of
>reason to experience. Religion is often very strongly tied to
>faith--believing something with no logical basis for that belief.
I'm not quite sure how "religion" got into this, but last case
first. There is no _logical_ basis for the belief in a scientific
principle (and I speak as someone with some hard-science and
engineering credentials). "Because it always has worked that way,"
isn't a _logical_ reason, though one might suggest that it's a
"reasonable" argument -- a practical one. Also, science isn't a
matter of a search for truth as a search for a level of understanding.
Pitting reason against "faith cloaked in flawed reason," is almost
an empty phrase. Faith is faith. I'd appreciate an example of
faith cloaked in flawed reason, and how one would pit "reason" against
it.
>A. The first says "don't get so hung up on logic, some things cannot
>be known within these constraints" (i.e., faith)
Faith can use logic (e.g., the ontological argument on the existence
of God). However, a statement such as "I believe there is life
after death," cannot be proven _nor disproven_ by logic.
>B. The second says "for many of the phenomena which are spoken about
>in this conference there is ample scientifically valid evidence
>which the scientific community is ignoring"
Or "suppressing," if you wish to be paranoid.
A third could be, "There are rare phenomena that have been reported,
but even those notivated to investigate them are unable to do so for a
variety of valid reasons." Stigmata, mentioned earlier, is an example
of this.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1001.66 | | NEATO::CAMHI | | Fri Apr 21 1989 21:15 | 115 |
|
Re .65 (Steve):
> >To me what's on the hook is when blind-faith is cloaked within a
> >false sense of science.
>
> Quoi? What, prithee, constitutes "a false sense of science"? If
> by that you imply that, say, rigorous testing for say, PK, using
> scientific methodology, is a manifestation of a false sense of science,
> I'd suggest that is in error.
No, what I mean is when non-rigorous tests are passed as
rigorous.
> >When it's faith, admit it's faith and realize the implications
> >(e.g., submitting to a phony faith healer in a life-threatening
> >situation when real medical treatment can help).
>
> When it's a semantic stab at stealing a base, admit it's an attempt
> to steal a base, and realize the implications. In the example you've
> set up, that the faith healing is "phony" is a given.
I am being misunderstood. I was specifically *not* implying a
conclusion of the merits of faith-healing in general by saying
*this particular* faith healer was a phony. And I was
specifically *not* implying that medical treatment can always
help by saying *when* it could help.
> Earlier in the responses, I gave
> a case of a person who might have an inoperable, terminal cancer
> that no known medical treatment can cure. I suggested that then
> going to a faith healer would be no worse than getting ineffectual
> medical treatment. In short, under _those_ circumstances, it couldn't
> hurt.
I agree that it probably couldn't hurt. Even the atheist prays
on death row.
> >I'm sure it appears that I do just that. My intent is to pit
> >reason against faith (actually, faith cloaked in flawed reason
> >since faith cannot be argued against in a logical way, see
> >1016.*). The by-product is no surprise. Science is the
> >embodiment of the search for truth through the application of
> >reason to experience. Religion is often very strongly tied to
> >faith--believing something with no logical basis for that belief.
>
> I'm not quite sure how "religion" got into this, but last case
> first.
in .64 I was replying to .63 (Topher), although the implications
have been there for a while
> There is no _logical_ basis for the belief in a scientific
> principle (and I speak as someone with some hard-science and
> engineering credentials). "Because it always has worked that way,"
> isn't a _logical_ reason, though one might suggest that it's a
> "reasonable" argument -- a practical one.
It seems to me that you are defining logic as the process by
which things are resolved with 100% certainty (i.e., conclusions
are "true" if assumptions are true) whereas reason is the process
whereby conclusions are made which are most probably true. If
that's what you mean, you're statement is reasonable.
I think the application of *logic* rather than *faith* to
observations will yield more reasonable conclusions. I think
scientists in general try to do this.
> Also, science isn't a
> matter of a search for truth as a search for a level of understanding.
I think it's both, and different scientist have different views
on their goals. I am certain that at least some see themselves
as "seekers of truth." I could be mistaken, but I seem to
recall that the word "science" has it's roots in "truth"
> Pitting reason against "faith cloaked in flawed reason," is almost
> an empty phrase. Faith is faith. I'd appreciate an example of
> faith cloaked in flawed reason, and how one would pit "reason" against
> it.
Broadly, I mean someone really wanting to believe in something
and believing in it out of faith and sort of concocting a
scientific-sounding explanation of it (or even a
non-scientfic-sounding explanation). Pitting reason against
this is "reasonably" evaluating the merits of the claims (or
getting the believer to understand critical thinking to do so).
I'll come up with an example if you still want one...
> >B. The second says "for many of the phenomena which are spoken about
> >in this conference there is ample scientifically valid evidence
> >which the scientific community is ignoring"
>
> Or "suppressing," if you wish to be paranoid.
Do you believe this?
> A third could be, "There are rare phenomena that have been reported,
> but even those notivated to investigate them are unable to do so for a
> variety of valid reasons." Stigmata, mentioned earlier, is an example
> of this.
In these cases, what conclusion should one draw about the
phenomena? what would the basis of the conclusion be?
- Keith
|