>On Nov 7, 3:23 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>> >On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and looked
>> >> at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a dog.... And
>> >> that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...." Seeing Jesus on a
>> >> grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
>> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>> are vague or nonexistent. Nothing supernatural there.
>Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
avoidance of subjectivity, which includes seeing figures in
clouds (or fires, or toasted cheese sandwiches). And try
looking up "Occam's Razor" and research on patterns people
"see" which exist only in the mind of the viewer, both of
which are especially relevant.
>RICHARD DAWKINS - "I don't like religion because it teaches us
>to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all".
Yes. So? You think "Yeah, man, I see it too" would be an
answer?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>Graham Cooper wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 3:23 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid
>>>>> and looked at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks
>>>>> like a dog.... And that one looks like a guy raking his lawn,
>>>>> and...." Seeing Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich is the same
>>>>> thing.
>>> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>>> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>>> are vague or nonexistent. Nothing supernatural there.
>>> --
>>> Bob C.
>> Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>> RICHARD DAWKINS - "I don't like religion because it teaches us
>> to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all".
>> Herc
>But about 80% of the American public is satisfied with answers that are not >really answers at all.....
You could leave out the national restriction and still be
correct.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
K Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid and
>>> looked at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks like a
>>> dog.... And that one looks like a guy raking his lawn, and...."
>>> Seeing Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich is the same thing.
> Clouds are similar to a Rorschach test. People will see what they
> want to see in them. And like a Rorschach, what is seen can be
> influenced by comments from another.
> For example: In the top cloud, where you show some flaming
> person, I see the face of The Silence from Doctor Who. The one on the
> right looks like a large dog to me.
> I see nothing but random shapes were you see a snake and a
> Buddha. I can almost see a face of some sort, but it's a stretch for
> me.
I wonder if the people who see the most are also the ones that like modern art? Its just like the modern popular music.... I listen, (and I am a musician) But all I hear is dumb, repetative noise. What am I missing?
> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> are vague or nonexistent.
> >> Nothing supernatural there.
> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> avoidance of subjectivity
I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)
>> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>> >> are vague or nonexistent.
>> >> Nothing supernatural there.
>> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
>> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
>> avoidance of subjectivity
>I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)
Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
process.
But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
that's all moot.
It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
it?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> >> avoidance of subjectivity
> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)
> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
> process.
> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
> that's all moot.
> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
> it?
> --
> Bob C.
Yeh when I stop laughing at the Skeptics' Abridged Notes on Scientific
Method here!
> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
> >> avoidance of subjectivity
> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)
> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
> process.
> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
> that's all moot.
> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
> it?
> --
> Bob C.
Yeh when I stop laughing at the Skeptics' Abridged Notes on Scientific
Method here!
K Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:25 -0800, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:26:09 -0800 (PST), Graham Cooper
>>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 6:14 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Have you eer laid on your back on the grass when you were a kid
>>>>> and looked at the clouds with a friend and said, "That one looks
>>>>> like a dog.... And that one looks like a guy raking his lawn,
>>>>> and...." Seeing Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich is the same
>>>>> thing.
>>> Clouds are similar to a Rorschach test. People will see what
>>> they want to see in them. And like a Rorschach, what is seen can be
>>> influenced by comments from another.
>>> For example: In the top cloud, where you show some flaming
>>> person, I see the face of The Silence from Doctor Who. The one on
>>> the right looks like a large dog to me.
>>> I see nothing but random shapes were you see a snake and a
>>> Buddha. I can almost see a face of some sort, but it's a stretch for
>>> me.
>> I wonder if the people who see the most are also the ones that like
>> modern art? Its just like the modern popular music.... I listen,
>> (and I am a musician) But all I hear is dumb, repetative noise. What
>> am I missing?
> Not much. I prefer Gershwin to Bieber.
I like Ray Henderson and Donaldson stuff, like: Carolina in the Morning
>On Nov 10, 3:13 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:31:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> Yep, exactly like that; we see things in clouds because
>> >> >> humans are hardwired to see patterns, even when the patterns
>> >> >> are vague or nonexistent.
>> >> >> Nothing supernatural there.
>> >> >Typical Skeptics non-scientific method.
>> >> You have a weird idea regarding what constitutes the
>> >> scientific method; one of the most important concepts is the
>> >> avoidance of subjectivity
>> >I think there's a bit more process to it than that! ;o)
>> Of course; the ability to repeat the process for a
>> disinterested audience is also crucial. You fail there, too,
>> since it rules out subjectivity. As you fail the requirement
>> to make testable predictions. And there's even more to the
>> process.
>> But after you fail the test of objectivity, which you did,
>> that's all moot.
>> It's a real bitch when a spurious accusation, such as the
>> one you made, turns around and bites you on the ass, isn't
>> it?
>Yeh when I stop laughing at the Skeptics' Abridged Notes on Scientific
>Method here!
More like "giggling moronically in denial", given that it
was an accurate summary.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
