Hi, BAUT folks... [debunking "ancient astronauts", "psychics" and "ghosts"]

[Tesarra]

You've brought us closer to a key issue, I think, SolusLupus. It's difficult to discount a personal experience, especially when that experience seems to have a profound impact on a close friend or relative. Herein lies the danger: we've busily taught generations of students now that everyone's opinion is valid that everyone's belief system is valid and that everyone deserves a chance to have the same voice, the same opportunities, etc. How do we then, without crushing these "fragile" egos (yes, I'm being a touch sarcastic), inform them that in science, their personal experiences are only valid insofar as they can be independently tested and verified?

When subscription only channels that purport to be "educational" offer programming that places "woo woo" material on the air as "scientific investigation", I believe they are creating an environment where real scientists attempting to unveil the truth can appear to be the bad guys for invalidating someone's "personal experience".


Tes

[SolusLupus]

One problem I have, is when people immediately leap to one conclusion. For instance, one person I talked to got out of getting hit by a car in a way that he doesn't understand. He thinks that a "miracle" honestly occurred, because he couldn't explain how the car didn't hit him from his position; he just closed his eyes, and then he was out of the path.

Now, for me, I don't see anything supernatural about this; when we operate off of adrenaline and are in a panic, we don't tend to perceive the world "normally". But let's say that a miracle did occur; let's just pretend for a moment that something did happen. How can you draw much of a conclusion from it? You could blame telekinetic powers, teleportation abilities, elves, aliens. . .

Some people in these "situations" leap to a single conclusion, usually based on cultural biases.

[R.A.F.]

...let's say that a miracle did occur; let's just pretend for a moment that something did happen.

I can not think of a more pointless "exercise".

[SolusLupus]

Pointless for you, anyways. Good thing I didn't write that for you.

[Moose]

Hypotheticals can lead to interesting questions.

Note: I'm not kicking you in any of this.

Hypotheticals can indeed lead to interesting questions. But it's not even remotely interesting to me when the point of the hypothetical is to ignore or otherwise evade the central fact that there has never been a single shred of reliable evidence of the mere existence of supernatural occurrences, and plenty of reliable evidence that a very large proportion of supernatural claims will fall under one or more of the following categories: 1) casual mis-identification of one or more natural phenomenons, 2) confirmation bias or some other well-understood form of psychological error, 3) and/or deliberate fraud.

Show me a genuine supernatural event. Then we can talk implications. Otherwise, it's an utter non-starter.

What is more interesting to me is how the human mind can be so utterly relentless about tricking itself, even when the result of that self-deception is tangibly self-destructive, sometimes to the point lethality.

[SolusLupus]

Sigh.

I see you both missed the point.

Oh well.

I've shown my post to a friend I respect. He thought my post was perfectly reasonable, in the hypothetical I was going for; he's also a skeptic himself. Dunno why my post bombed so harshly here.

Well, responding to R.A.F. was just as pointless as he claims my hypothetical was, I think. So is this.

[Tesarra]

I think the point, Solus, is that if we do take up your case where one person has witnessed something truly supernatural, what could we (scientifically speaking) do with it? The answer, unfortunately, is absolutely nothing. Your hypothetical solitary observer is stuck with a story (maybe even a very nice, exciting story) that no one can verify, which is, incidentally, exactly the situation we're in with every other recorded supposedly supernatural event in history.

Being a scientist doesn't necessarily require adopting the stance of "I can't prove it, therefore it doesn't exist" but it does require making a distinction between things we take on faith and things we can demonstrate scientifically.


Tes

[SolusLupus]

Did anyone else actually read the post, at all? My point was, that these people tend to latch onto just one solitary conclusion, as if they were waiting to receive "evidence" to fulfill some cultural/folk story. There's no need to talk about what we should do "scientifically" about it, as that is missing entirely the whole point of why I brought it up.

It's like people read a few words, immediately leap to Conclusion mode once they see certain "key words", and stop reading past that. Considering R.A.F.'s rather limited quotation, it seems like that's exactly what he did.

Okay, final edit. I know I'm getting more emotional about this than I should.

I'm taking a break from these forums.

[Moose]

Nah, we read it. That's the problem with supernatural claims. You've hinted at it. Even if one actually happened (a hypothetical that doesn't do a thing for me), it really doesn't change much. Until someone proves the event actually happened, it's nothing more than idle speculation. There just isn't much meat to be found in speculation about speculation.

[Swift]

Deep breathes folks. I think people on both sides of this are getting a little emotional and personal. There is no need for any of that. Please discuss this as adults, particularly as pleasant adults. Thanks,

[Tesarra]

I think it's pretty clear from SolusLupus' last post that we're more or less on the same side of the issue, but poking at it with different sticks.

From my experience, when friends of mine have had that "guardian angel just saved my life" thing happen, I've had to learn to use caution and evaluate what my friend can accept before handing them the rational explanation (from your perspective it may have appeared you missed the oncoming truck by a millimeter, but you actually were over a foot apart). If they're really looking for a supernatural power to be responsible, I'll only look like the bad guy and possibly lose a friend by playing the good scientist.

[SkepticJ]

I am uniimpressed. I have done quite a lot of work in "his area".

I guess since you're unimpressed, he wasn't smart.

Like who ? And doing "amazing work" does not necessarily make one either educated or knowledgable with regard to science. I certainly would not want a Young Earth Creationist teaching science or being held up as a model of how to think critically and rationally.

Raymond Damadian, for one. He was one of the inventors of a piece of technology called an MRI machine. Perhaps you've heard of them.

I wouldn't want a Young Earth Creationist teaching biology, cosmology, geology, or things like that. But, say, basic physics, chemistry etc., what's the issue?

My college biology teacher believes in God (gasp!) and that the universe was created, but she accepts that evolution is how we got here.

If you are trying to justify superstition as an acceptable aspect of rational thought and logic then forget it. Whether someone has done good creative work or not has no bearing on the fact that irrationality is irrational. Some have done good work despite irrational episodes. Many more have not.

I'm not trying to justify anything--I hold no irrational views, that I'm aware of. And you're shifting what you said. You didn't say superstition was at odds with rationality. You said that an educated person can't have superstitions, which is ludicrous.

Sounds pretty buggy. Any examples of note ?

Who would be noteworthy enough as an insect-specializing biologist? One of the founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory wasn't enough to impress you in the area of rocket engineering.

In any case, I was simply tossing that one out there as something that is irrational, but that some intelligent, educated scientists surely believe in.

Not of note, but one of my friends will get her doctorate in either biology or chemistry. She's crazy-smart, much better at math and science than I'll ever be, and she's a practicing pagan, with magic and everything. Believes in ghosts, too.

[DrRocket]

So it's all or nothing? If someone isn't a genius, they're an idiot? If someone isn't perfect, then they're the opposite? Seriously, that's the kind of logic we're dealing with here.

If so that logic is unique unto you.

Also, what's with redefining the word "educated"? Just because I learn mathematics, doesn't mean I can't believe in ghosts. Yes, my logic would be flawed if I believed in ghosts, but that doesn't mean that I suddenly don't know mathematics. Perhaps you can prove otherwise, Rocket?

If you are educated your ability to reason and to think logically should apply rather universally. "Knowing" as in having stored a number of facts in your brain is not equivalent to being educated, which implies the ability to reasone effectively and make good use of those facts.

[DrRocket]

Not of note, but one of my friends will get her doctorate in either biology or chemistry. She's crazy-smart, much better at math and science than I'll ever be, and she's a practicing pagan, with magic and everything. Believes in ghosts, too.

Possible, but unlikely. Folks like that tend to self-destruct long before completing the Ph.D. requirements.

Does she really believe this nonsense or is just socially exciting to participate in the rituals ?

[SolusLupus]

Nah, we read it. That's the problem with supernatural claims. You've hinted at it. Even if one actually happened (a hypothetical that doesn't do a thing for me), it really doesn't change much. Until someone proves the event actually happened, it's nothing more than idle speculation. There just isn't much meat to be found in speculation about speculation.

That... uhm... fine.

Sigh.

I have hinted at what a friend told me. I don't know if what happened to her was real or not, but that question was irrelevant to the point I was bringing up.

As it seems that you and R.A.F. are unwilling to read my post for what it was, I'm not sure how to respond. I didn't ask or show any "meat", because that had nothing to do with the point I was making, at all.

[SkepticJ]

If you are educated your ability to reason and to think logically should apply rather universally. "Knowing" as in having stored a number of facts in your brain is not equivalent to being educated, which implies the ability to reasone effectively and make good use of those facts.

Should, not does.

Since you view Isaac Newton as a paragon of uber-rationality, how do you view his occult studies? It didn't stop with alchemy.

[Gillianren]

Let me try.

The point is not that people think "and then a miracle happened." The point is where their brain leaps. I just read The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, and Our Hero talks a great deal about magic. Magic, to him, is a fact of life. When something goes wrong, that's a serious possibility so far as he's concerned. On the other hand, some people I've known would call it karma--or even the Devil. It's not interesting that people look for supernatural explanations; we all know about that. It is interesting, at least from a sociological perspective, which supernatural explanations they think of, and think of, well, without thinking.

[SolusLupus]

Let me try.

The point is not that people think "and then a miracle happened." The point is where their brain leaps. I just read The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, and Our Hero talks a great deal about magic. Magic, to him, is a fact of life. When something goes wrong, that's a serious possibility so far as he's concerned. On the other hand, some people I've know would call it karma--or even the Devil. It's not interesting that people look for supernatural explanations; we all know about that. It is interesting, at least from a sociological perspective, which supernatural explanations they think of, and think of, well, without thinking.

Yes, thank you. Finally, someone that bothers to understand.

The point was, that they leap to Conclusion X, not Conclusion Y or Conclusion Z. They blame ghosts, not ET. They blame magic, not the divine (or vice versa). Etc.

[Frog march]

Originally Posted by Frog march
yeah, well, personal experience=evidence
as far as I see it.

The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"?

but I didn't mention any anecdotes.

I think someone's own experience can be evidence for them; if they talk to someone else about it, then it becomes anecdotal.

[Sticks]

Possible, but unlikely. Folks like that tend to self-destruct long before completing the Ph.D. requirements.

Does she really believe this nonsense or is just socially exciting to participate in the rituals ?

DrRocket

This post is sailing very close to violating the no religion rule

[Tesarra]

Yes, thank you. Finally, someone that bothers to understand.

The point was, that they leap to Conclusion X, not Conclusion Y or Conclusion Z. They blame ghosts, not ET. They blame magic, not the divine (or vice versa). Etc.

I'm sorry, it wasn't that I didn't "bother to understand" but rather that I simply didn't understand. Now I do, and you're right in saying it's a very interesting issue to consider.

Another one might be why so many of us, when misunderstood, leap to the conclusion that the other parties aren't trying to understand us. I know I do this, and it has had negative consequences in my work and at home. We know what we mean, we know what we're trying to communicate and to us, the words we've chosen convey our meaning with great precision.

These may be related, actually, so not entirely off topic. Which direction do we rush when we rush to judgement? How does our level of education, socialization, etc. affect this? At least in my own experience, I'm less likely to leap to any conclusion in my area of expertise, computer engineering, than I am in some area I'm nearly ignorant, like interpersonal behavior. Do the rest of us have similar experiences, exercising caution in our trained fields and falling back on tribal instincts elsewhere?


Tes

[Gillianren]

Another one might be why so many of us, when misunderstood, leap to the conclusion that the other parties aren't trying to understand us. I know I do this, and it has had negative consequences in my work and at home. We know what we mean, we know what we're trying to communicate and to us, the words we've chosen convey our meaning with great precision.

I think at least part of the problem is that we all think, or at least those of us who are native speakers think, "This is my language. I've been speaking this since I was a baby and writing it since I was seven (or whatever). How can it be that I'm using it wrong?" But we are, sometimes; we do. I pride myself on my clarity of communication, because I've worked harder at it than most people, but I know that I am misunderstood and misunderstand others sometimes. It's probably because we all see things differently inside our heads, or anyway that's my guess.

These may be related, actually, so not entirely off topic. Which direction do we rush when we rush to judgement? How does our level of education, socialization, etc. affect this? At least in my own experience, I'm less likely to leap to any conclusion in my area of expertise, computer engineering, than I am in some area I'm nearly ignorant, like interpersonal behavior. Do the rest of us have similar experiences, exercising caution in our trained fields and falling back on tribal instincts elsewhere?

I know that, when it comes to science, I tend to latch onto a few people whom I just assume know more than I and are therefore right. Part of that assumption, however, comes from seeing how willing they are to be corrected when they're wrong! If you question me about a point of literature, history, grammar, etymology, or psychology, I'm more inclined to research what I don't already know--more in history and psychology!--simply because I know where to look and how reliable various sources are. (Actually, one of the first things I check when I'm looking at a book on etymology is, if they have "posh," they repeat that "port out, starboard home" nonsense, and if they don't have it, if they give a definitive origin for "the whole nine yards," an argument which may well never be settled.) Computers? I just believe what my friend Sam tells me!

[Swift]

Yes, thank you. Finally, someone that bothers to understand.

The point was, that they leap to Conclusion X, not Conclusion Y or Conclusion Z. They blame ghosts, not ET. They blame magic, not the divine (or vice versa). Etc.

I think part of it is that humans are also very good at compartmentalizing their knowledge and their (for lack of a better term) mental abilities. I know of many people who are completely factual and logical on some topics, and are less so on others. There are many examples I personally know of scientists and engineers who are very good at what they do, but believe in things outside such areas (such religion or conspiracies). Yes, maybe I don't want them teaching evolution to my kids, but they are fine at developing chemical processes.

I think part of this apparent dichotomy is the view many people have of scientists. For one, they think the only people who can get a PhD in say, chemistry, are absolutely 100% logical Mr. Spocks (or maybe you become Vulcan upon the granting of the degree?). I actually am a pretty logical person (I do look at spirital questions logically, for example), but even I have my moments. And, as I said, I know of many others, who are quite fine scientists, but have beliefs that are quite unscientific.

[SolusLupus]

I'm sorry, it wasn't that I didn't "bother to understand" but rather that I simply didn't understand.

Except that I stated, three times, that people didn't get the point, and suggested they read my post again. Each time Moose claimed that he "did read my post", and each time he insisted that his interpretation was right and did not bother to see why I was stating he didn't get the point.

I'm more angry at Moose and R.A.F. than you, anyways. I always react badly to an outright dismissal, especially when that dismissal is based on totally misunderstanding what I said, and then ignoring me when I'm trying to explain that there's a misunderstanding.

Now I do, and you're right in saying it's a very interesting issue to consider.

Another one might be why so many of us, when misunderstood, leap to the conclusion that the other parties aren't trying to understand us.

Considering that R.A.F. only quoted one particular segment of my post and seemed to stop reading past that, I think my conclusion was warranted.

These may be related, actually, so not entirely off topic. Which direction do we rush when we rush to judgement? How does our level of education, socialization, etc. affect this? At least in my own experience, I'm less likely to leap to any conclusion in my area of expertise, computer engineering, than I am in some area I'm nearly ignorant, like interpersonal behavior. Do the rest of us have similar experiences, exercising caution in our trained fields and falling back on tribal instincts elsewhere?

I think that you're very right here. I always like to say this fact: We're all ignorant. Just some of us are less ignorant than others. But when you compare the things we're ignorant on to the things we're not, the ignorance almost always wins out. Though ignorance doesn't necessarily mean "lacks wisdom".

[Luckmeister]

In this discussion, the Mr. Spock reference was apt. The show's writers did a good job of using Spock and Bones to show the difficulty the logical and emotional have in getting on the same page. A good example is when HBs come here and soon leave in utter frustration. Their conclusions and reactions are based mostly on emotion, although they think they're being very logical. This applies not just to pseudoscience but to almost any subject. If we're fortunate, we have a balance of both, allowing a richer life. I think true leaders have that balance, but they still have to deal with an internal tug of war between them.

Mike

[Tesarra]

I think at least part of the problem is that we all think, or at least those of us who are native speakers think, "This is my language. I've been speaking this since I was a baby and writing it since I was seven (or whatever). How can it be that I'm using it wrong?" But we are, sometimes; we do. I pride myself on my clarity of communication, because I've worked harder at it than most people, but I know that I am misunderstood and misunderstand others sometimes. It's probably because we all see things differently inside our heads, or anyway that's my guess.

The word for this is "semiotics". It deals with the difference between the definition of the word and what the word evokes in our minds. While definitions are fairly cut and dried, that mental picture varies (sometimes significantly) from one person to the next even among native speakers.


Tes

[R.A.F.]

I'm more angry at Moose and R.A.F. than you, anyways. I always react badly to an outright dismissal, especially when that dismissal is based on totally misunderstanding what I said, and then ignoring me when I'm trying to explain that there's a misunderstanding.

Considering that R.A.F. only quoted one particular segment of my post and seemed to stopreading past that, I think my conclusion was warranted.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post...now could you possibly give it a rest?

[SolusLupus]

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post...now could you possibly give it a rest?

Sure.

[HenrikOlsen]

I can not think of a more pointless "exercise".

Nah, we read it. That's the problem with supernatural claims. You've hinted at it. Even if one actually happened (a hypothetical that doesn't do a thing for me), it really doesn't change much. Until someone proves the event actually happened, it's nothing more than idle speculation. There just isn't much meat to be found in speculation about speculation.

Funny how R.A.F. and Moose actually illustrates SolusLupus' point, by halfway though the post jumping to the wrong conclusion based on their preconceptions and filtering the rest through that conclusion rather than thinking about what was actually written.

Jumping to conclusions based on insufficient information is a fundamental part of how human cogitation works, it's how you react when presented with additional information that goes against the initial conclusion that defines whether there's a problem.

The problem is that some knowledge comes as an axiomatic set of things known about how the world works. This fundamental set of knowledge is very rarely examined since it's part of defining what you are and whenever something challenges part of it, it's easier to discard it as experimental or observational error than reevaluate your fundamental way of seeing the world.

This is true for everyone, Woo's and Skeptics alike, the difference is in what the fundamental axioms they see the world through are, not in how they use them.
Skeptics has as a declared part of their axiomatic rules set that the axiomatic rules set ought to be regularly reexamined but in truth is isn't actually done all that often, mainly because they are using an upgraded world view that isn't challenged as often by contrary evidence.


ETA, I wrote this when I was on the previous page of the thread, I see timing wise it looks like a deliberate slap at R.A.F., it wasn't intended to be one.

[Moose]

The point was, that they leap to Conclusion X, not Conclusion Y or Conclusion Z. They blame ghosts, not ET. They blame magic, not the divine (or vice versa). Etc.

Let me make myself clearer than I appear to have done Several of you have been filtering your own preconceptions and obviously misunderstood what I've been saying.

Yes, this is a well understood phenomenon. In the 1800s, it was witches and/or night hags. In the early 1900s, it was demons. In the 50s, it was aliens. In the 70s, it was ghosts. Then demons. In the 2000s, it was a hodgepodge of psychic phenomena, mostly ghosts again.

The basic driver of this cultural phenomenon is a condition called "sleep paralysis". The form of the rationalization is partially driven by and partially drives mainstream media (in particular, Hollywood).

"Little green men" movies were popular in the 50s. Ghost movies were popular in the 70s. Demon movies in the 80s and 90s. And psychics are very dominant in movie making (and new age culture) these days.

I'm sorry I don't find this phenomenon very interesting, but there it is. Kindly deal with it.