The score
Zoe
can get by with, here are the results:
Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
How does that follow from the results? Perhaps the reason for the
answers you got is the result of investigating accounts of alleged
miracles. In my experience, skeptics are the *only* people who are truly
open to investigating this sort of "hard evidence". True believers don't
even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so often
does, to be a hoax.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Pfusand
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over.
No, it isn't. You have not dealt with the questions put to you there.
> Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
Since you have not identified which answer you have placed in which
category, you do not actually have "results." I certainly don't
recognize *any* of those categories as suiting my response.
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
So, are we to deduce that you think 19 of 47 is "almost half"? Or is
it 19 of 29?
> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>
> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
And which of the two groups of 5 is that "smallest number," Zoe?
> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
You really don't understand the meaning of the term "research," do
you?
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Nic
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
I don't think this is fair. You don't know what investigations people
would make as you didn't say what options they had. e.g. What
question could we ask of any of the people present?, or can we rekill
the guy and cut him open?
However, the non-investigation at the invitation of timewasters *is* a
valid scientific stance. That is why I don't like people scoring
points off the cardinals/Jesuits/Aristotelian philosophers/the
Inquisition (delete as applicable) who refused to look through
Galileo's telescope.
John Harshman
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
"magic" is a good umbrella term. The problem is that such an event would
call into question everything we know, including how we can use science
to know anything.
> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>
> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>
> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
You didn't participate. Where's your answer?
Bobby Bryant
Zoe <muz...@aol.com> writes:
Now please answer _my_ question.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
R. Baldwin
news:6ucc53ha0f1ss8q3r...@4ax.com...
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
How does skepticism get you get to this conclusion, Zoe? That people don't
leap to the conclusion that what they've witnessed was a miracle is hardly
surprising. Even most people of faith do not do this. If we take for granted
that mircacles exist, they must be rare, or hypotheses about the natural
world would fail too often to have merit. Also, the existence of frauds is
well known. Skepticism about a purported miracle is simply good policy.
Furthermore, miraculous causes are not accessible to investigation. Science
can fail to arrive at a natural explanation. It cannot produce a
supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are outside of science.
raven1
>Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
I'd be interested in seeing the responses as categorized by you, Zoe.
For example, how did you classify mine, where I drew no conclusion,
but asked how likely the various scenarios were? Which ones did you
consider irrelevant? Enquiring minds want to know.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Lee Oswald Ving
4ax.com:
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
Since that obviously includes you, any results you report are automatically
suspect.
What a waste of time.
Slimebot McGoo
Pretty smug for somebody who just showed her ass again. We understand
a great deal about the world, and every bit of it is understood in
natural terms. None of it, not the slightest bit, is known to be
supernatural. To think the possibility of a miracle should be given
serious consideration before every other possibility is ruled out
twice is laughably biased and not a little dumb.
McGoo
Inez
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
I'm certainly not going to claim that your conclusions are wrong, but
you really didn't test them with your question. "Prevent them from
investigating *any* type of hard evidence..."? Your question
certainly did not plumb that sort of depth.
And while your at it, I'd say that your answer to my question rather
indicated you were predisposed to attach religous significance to a
seemingly metaphysical occurance. A man turns you into a blue jay and
you immediately think in terms of being on his side. Your core is not
without bias.
derdag
You can tell that it was a flawed hypothesis structured firmly on an
incorrect analogy, because I didn't post a response at all.
My conclusion was made at that point and our conclusions are clearly
at odds with one another.
Of the making of books, there is no end; and much study is a weariness
of the flesh. Let us come to the conclusion of the whole matter;
fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Mark VandeWettering
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
You made that up. Nobody said that. Nobody even implied that.
> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>
> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>
> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
What you fail to realize is just how pointless this experiment was.
Nobody has been confronted by this situation. Ever. Not even once. In
the long history of humanity. To draw any conclusions about this fantasy
is pointless.
Mark
wf3h
Zoe wrote:
> > Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
first among these is a poster named 'zoe'...
>
Greg Guarino
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
I would think that most people, including those who believe that
miracles occasionally happen, would be skeptical of something like
that. In my life I have seen people, animals and objects disappear and
transform into other objects. I have seen people divine the contents
of sealed envelopes and the identity of unseen playing cards. I have
seen a person levitate and another sawn in half. And that's just what
I've seen in person. On video and film I have seen practically every
sort of miracle.
I have also seen people lie and deceive where it suited their
purposes. Your question becomes a little bit like those so-called
psychological tests that ask who you would save from a sinking
rowboat. The posited scenario is simply unrealistic, in that not one
of us has ever been in that situation, nor do we know anyone who has.
Nor have we ever heard of such a thing happening anywhere. In such a
case, it is normal, healthy and, in my opinion, smart peek behind the
curtain.
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
wrote:
I'd like to amplify my point a bit. All of the "feats" above were of
course in magic shows where there was no real attempt to deceive, just
to entertain through trickery. But I have also seen, at least on TV,
people heal the lame, speak to the dead and read the thoughts and
troubles of the faithful. Many of these people claim that it is the
power of God that enabled these miracles, rather than hidden
microphones, shills and other tricks.
I think that it is possible, and advisable, to be skeptical of such
things no matter how devout one might be. There is always someone who
would play on that devotion to benefit himself or further his cause.
Greg Guarino
eerok
Your "research project" was nothing more than a parlor game,
and what you learned is that most people didn't take it
seriously.
If one witnesses something extraordinary, like the miracle you
suggested, it's natural to doubt one's senses (or sanity) and
then seek to investigate it. Since your example was within
your range of expectations, though, you'd be more willing to
accept it without question. This is the only distinction
you've drawn, and you can't conclude much beyond that.
The thing about science, though, is that it doesn't matter
whether an observation is expected or not, it still gets
investigated.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
Bloopen...@juno.com
wrote:
[snip]
> Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
> order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
> restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
> plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
> those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
> hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
> "magic" is a good umbrella term. The problem is that such an event would
> call into question everything we know, including how we can use science
> to know anything.
Okay, now here's a common skeptical argument that I can't quite
understand. Perhaps you can enlighten me. How exactly would a
supernaturally- or magically-caused event undermine all of science? I
can't see how it would because scientific laws are not static in the
first place, they are revised as new causal mechanisms are discovered.
Richard Clayton
I disagree with your conclusions. I think it's a more accurate
description to say that "almost half of the respondents are
sufficiently skeptical about claimed resurrections that they assume
that a con or fraud of some sort is far more likely than an actual
resurrection."
I concur, actually; there are plenty of confidence men who make a very
fine living on psychic surgery, mystical cancer treatments, and other
medical "miracles." But until they can repeat the experiment under
controlled conditions, I don't buy into their claims of curing HIV
through re-aligning chi flows or extending life with "energized"
water.
I don't think it's a matter of pre-existing metaphysical commitments,
Zoe. I think it's more an issue of "fool me once, shame on you; fool
me twice, shame on me; fool me ten thousand times, I'm not going to
listen to you any more."
John Harshman
Well, that's what "supernatural" means. Magic is defined as standing
outside all the laws of nature. It can't be constrained or investigated
by experiment or observation. What magic does in one case has no bearing
on what magic does in another case. And that destroys all hope of doing
science with it. If magic can produce one result, why not another? Our
only chance of retaining science is if magic is so rare that we can just
ignore its existence.
I suppose we could indeed decide that Zoe's event was magic, and so
inexplicable, and agree to ignore it, hoping that this sort of thing
wouldn't become commonplace.
Now is it possible that the event wasn't magic, but instead the
operation of some unknown but knowable bit of nature? Maybe. But I think
that new law of nature would end up requiring us to throw away much of
what we know about biology, thermodynamics, and organic chemistry. There
are just too many irreversible events that happen to dead bodies, not to
mention the convenient return of the excised heart and closing of the
incision. On second thought, there's a lot of physics that would have to
be thrown out too. In fact to explain this miracle occasioned by a
stranger's voice, we would have to rethink the basic nature of reality.
Where would we start? How would we start?
mel turner
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
So, do you think people shouldn't be highly skeptical of any
apparently "impossible" event that violates what they think they
understand about reality as they know it? What exactly do you
propose instead?
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
Did all those who expressed disbelief and those that didn't
know say they _wouldn't_ investigate any further?
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
IIRC, that's not at all evident from your responses. Just because
someone suspects your miracle was just a trick or a hallucination
needn't prevent them from being able to investigate it further.
Further, I note that you didn't answer your survey for yourself.
What approach do _you_ recommend we all should have taken to your
hypothetical case? Are there any real cases that you feel we
should be approaching your way?
Would your approach to your hypothetical autopsy resurrection guy
be any different from your response to seeing a hypothetical UFO
landing, or a hypothetical green-skinned, broomstick-riding witch
turning someone into a newt, or to a stage magician apparently
sawing a person in half?
Would your approach to your hypothetical miracle worker be exactly
the same whether he next announced to the room that he was Jesus,
or the Greek god Apollo, or a visiting researcher from the distant
planet Xalnar?
> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs,
What "core beliefs" do you think are in play here? Did you
really even ask us about any "core beliefs"?
>and instead posted
> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
If they are indeed irrelevancies, they can be skipped without
scoring them.
> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
In which case, are they actually "core beliefs" at all?
> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
Too bad it's over, then, since it's rather fun.
cheers
Alex McDonald
Peyote and religion, taken together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Frank J
muz...@aol.com
wrote:
>Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>[etc.]
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>How does that follow from the results? Perhaps the reason for the
>answers you got is the result of investigating accounts of alleged
>miracles. In my experience, skeptics are the *only* people who are truly
>open to investigating this sort of "hard evidence". True believers don't
>even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so often
>does, to be a hoax.
Sue, I can only go by what was actually said. A handful said they
would investigate further before forming any conclusions. Most of
those who voiced disbelief did not add that they would investigate
further. Admittedly, this was a very superficial survey, done more in
the spirit of fun than true research. So on that superficial basis, I
tallied the scores by those who said they would investigate versus
those who voiced disbelief and never mentioned further investigation.
Your last sentence is interesting: "True believers don't
even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so
often does, to be a hoax."
Are you saying here that those who voiced disbelief and refused to
look any closer are true believers?
muz...@aol.com
>On May 24, 8:56 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over.
>
>No, it isn't. You have not dealt with the questions put to you there.
questions or demands? If I remember right, there were a lot of
demands from you for apologies.
Pfusand, if I have harmed you in any way, I apologize. It was not my
intent.
>
>> Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
>Since you have not identified which answer you have placed in which
>category, you do not actually have "results." I certainly don't
>recognize *any* of those categories as suiting my response.
I didn't think posters would want me identifying them with positions
that tagged them as unscientific. But since you ask, I had you under
the column for "tricks" "not believing" "doubt senses." If I had made
a category for oversensitivity, then you surely would have been placed
there.
>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>So, are we to deduce that you think 19 of 47 is "almost half"? Or is
>it 19 of 29?
there you go ago -- quibbling over the dressing instead of the meat.
But for you, I'll try to be more rigorous. Half of 47 (if it was
truly 47) is 23-1/2. 19, in my liberal books, is almost 23-1/2, four
and one-half persons short of half.
>
>> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
>> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
>> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>>
>> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
>> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>
>And which of the two groups of 5 is that "smallest number," Zoe?
okay, one of the two smallest groups (five apiece). I'm trying to
take you veeery seriously, Pfu.
>
>> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
>
>You really don't understand the meaning of the term "research," do
>you?
well, that's the kind of research found in sandboxes, I guess.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [etc.]
>
> > Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> > beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> > evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
> How does that follow from the results? Perhaps the reason for the
> answers you got is the result of investigating accounts of alleged
> miracles. In my experience, skeptics are the *only* people who are truly
> open to investigating this sort of "hard evidence". True believers don't
> even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so often
> does, to be a hoax.
Has this always been true? I am thinking mainly of the RC church and
the processes of beatification and canonization. It seems to me that
in the past, the candidates were subjected to much more rigorous
investigation than we see today. Didn't they always have a Devil's
Advocate that argued against canonization? The DA tried to show any
miracles were natural healings, frauds, what have you. With Mother
Teresa fast-tracked to sainthood, not to mention John Paul II (who
might have been a decent sort, but a saint? Nah) they've lost pretty
much all credibility.
Chris
muz...@aol.com
you were under the "doubt senses" column.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Your last sentence is interesting: "True believers don't
> even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so
> often does, to be a hoax."
>
> Are you saying here that those who voiced disbelief and refused to
> look any closer are true believers?
No, I wasn't talking about anyone in the thread, I was talking about
religious fanatics, or people in general who are convinced of the reality
of various alleged miracles. Those are the sort of people you will hear
saying things like "Nothing you can say will ever change my belief". For
instance, a guy I used to know was always getting all excited about what
I considered obvious con jobs like psychic surgeons, or people seeing
visions or rosaries being turned to gold or whatever. In fact, he once
showed me a rosary that his mother owned that he claimed had been silver,
but was miraculously turned to gold. I'll admit I was intrigued. But
when I asked questions, like whether they had tested it or anything, he
acted like he didn't hear me. And yet *I* was supposedly the "close-
minded" one (sheesh). He had no interest in finding out what the real
story was, he'd rather just believe that God had nothing better to do
than turn perfectly good silver rosaries to gold. So I will never know
whether it was, in fact, as some have suggested, just a brass piece with
silver plating that had been rubbed off by repeated handling. And as I
remember it, the appearance was consistent with that explanation (you
could still see traces of silver in the indentations).
And I've seen this sort of thing over and over again with religious
believers. They are so obsessed with clinging to their "core beliefs"
that they think everybody else is so afflicted. They pose questions like
the OP, thinking that they are proving that skeptics are so close-minded
that no amount of "evidence" will ever convince them. But what they
don't want to realize is that some of us *have* looked closer at
miraculous claims. And when you've seen enough such claims evaporate in
the cold hard light of scrutiny, it is only reasonable to expect that the
latest miracle is just going to be more of the same.
Cheezits
[etc.]
>> In my experience, skeptics are the *only* people who are
>> truly open to investigating this sort of "hard evidence". True
>> believers don't even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn
>> out, as it so often does, to be a hoax.
>
> Has this always been true? I am thinking mainly of the RC church and
> the processes of beatification and canonization.
I don't know much about how the church itself operates, but I am under
the impression that it has stricter standards for declaring official
miracles than the average believer does.
JTEM
> I don't know much about how the church
> itself operates, but I am under the
> impression that it has stricter standards
> for declaring official miracles than the
> average believer does.
For medical "miracles," the standards are
pretty tight. In fact, on their surface they
might seem quite reasonable.
The problem is, you can't apply them to
"medical science" of, say, 100 years ago
without resulting in many "Miracles" that
could be conventionally explained today.
One need only imagine that the same will
be true 100 years from now in order to see
the issue...
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which of your categories corresponds to "doubt senses"?
I would "investigate further" if that's what you mean. Starting with
asking you for more information on the rather vague scenario, which I
did in the initial reply.
Frank J
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 01:38:55 GMT, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >[etc.]
> >> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> >> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> >> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
> >How does that follow from the results? Perhaps the reason for the
> >answers you got is the result of investigating accounts of alleged
> >miracles. In my experience, skeptics are the *only* people who are truly
> >open to investigating this sort of "hard evidence". True believers don't
> >even want to look too close, lest their evidence turn out, as it so often
> >does, to be a hoax.
>
> Sue, I can only go by what was actually said. A handful said they
> would investigate further before forming any conclusions. Most of
> those who voiced disbelief did not add that they would investigate
> further. Admittedly, this was a very superficial survey, done more in
> the spirit of fun than true research.
I looked at the original thread and saw only 25 replies. Were the
other 22 on a different thread, private email or is it just a Google
groups problem? Either way, all of the familiar names were of
"evolutionists." In general antievolutionists avoid questions like
yours, on TO at least.
If you want to do a meaningful survey of who investigates further vs
who uses an observation to just validate a pre-held belief, then
compare evolutionists to anti-evolution activists. As a particularly
illuminating example, compare how Muller worked on "interlocking
complexity" for years, while Behe, who has repackaged Muller's idea,
has not taken the first step toward investigating it, but rather has
been spinning misrepresentations and peddling incredulity for 11+
years. Or how about abiogenesis? Who is actually trying to learn how
and when "Goddidit" and who is sitting on the sidelines taking
potshots?
Bobby Bryant
muz...@aol.com writes:
> Sue, I can only go by what was actually said. A handful said they
> would investigate further before forming any conclusions. Most of
> those who voiced disbelief did not add that they would investigate
> further. Admittedly, this was a very superficial survey, done more
> in the spirit of fun than true research.
It's painfully clear that you phrased (and rephrased) the question
in order to solicit the desired result.
Why not show a bit of intellectual honesty and answer the questions
we asked *you* in the thread?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Zoe
>On 25 May, 01:56, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>I don't think this is fair. You don't know what investigations people
>would make as you didn't say what options they had. e.g. What
>question could we ask of any of the people present?, or can we rekill
>the guy and cut him open?
Nic, I was just checking for initial gut responses. Personally, I
think those are the truest indicators of the core beliefs.
(Posting from a laptop and things are different from the desktop, for
some reason. I'll take Sue's good advice and wait to see how this
post goes through. )
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>In article <6ucc53ha0f1ss8q3r...@4ax.com>,
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>>
>> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
>> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
>> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>>
>> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
>> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>>
>> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
>
>Now please answer _my_ question.
would you repeat the question, please?
Zoe
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
>order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
>restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
>plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
>those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
>hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
the rules of reality are man-made. As soon as further understanding
of the universe increases, the rules of reality change. Once upon a
time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe. The rules of
reality once said that the sun went around the earth. What about the
rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
metal to defy gravity and fly?
Reality is a broad frontier, and the rules we make about it are
man-made. So to take a rigid position that the rules of reality are
unchangeable is to halt in your pursuit of knowledge.
>"magic" is a good umbrella term. The problem is that such an event would
>call into question everything we know, including how we can use science
>to know anything.
>
>> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
>> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
>> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>>
>> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
>> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>>
>> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
>
>You didn't participate. Where's your answer?
my answer was that I would be very interested to know how it was done;
I would hope to question the stranger, as a start. I have been to a
couple of magic shows in my lifetime, at the end of which I wanted to
interview the magician in hopes of learning how they performed their
tricks. If they had been willing to share, I am sure they could
explain how they created the illusion.
If, however, they were to give as an explanation that they became
possessed by some higher power that they could not explain, and were
thus able to perform some of the tricks that they admitted were
clearly not illusion, then that would be a dead end for me because I
don't intend to try to interview higher powers that I am not
acquainted with. They might turn out to be the wrong kind of powers.
But getting back to interviewing the stranger. If he claimed that he
himself had the power to resurrect, was not possessed by some higher
power but was himself the higher power...well, now I'd have to
seriously consider whether to stay or to run. I'd have to observe
this stranger further before going any further.
wf...@comcast.net
>On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:34:16 GMT, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>>
>the rules of reality are man-made.
what's laughable about creationists is they insist the rules of
reality are manmade, and the rules of morality are obectively true.
>Reality is a broad frontier, and the rules we make about it are
>man-made. So to take a rigid position that the rules of reality are
>unchangeable is to halt in your pursuit of knowledge.
what zoe doesn't realize...due to her religious beliefs...is that
while we can't always state what's true, we CAN state what's false.
that's why the rules change.
and creationism is false. biblical literalism is false.
>
>
>
>But getting back to interviewing the stranger. If he claimed that he
>himself had the power to resurrect, was not possessed by some higher
>power but was himself the higher power...well, now I'd have to
>seriously consider whether to stay or to run. I'd have to observe
>this stranger further before going any further.
given her propensity to accept religion over evidence, one can only
imagine the bastard concepts that would emerge from such a process.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Given that the average believer will see the Virgin Mary in the swirl
of salsa on a nachos chip, I'd certainly hope so.
Chris
MWN
> >Zoe wrote:
<snipped>
> the rules of reality are man-made. As soon as further understanding
> of the universe increases, the rules of reality change. Once upon a
> time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
> talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe. The rules of
> reality once said that the sun went around the earth. What about the
> rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
> metal to defy gravity and fly?
Zoe, what do you mean by "rules of reality"? Natural laws? It is not
that the "rules of reality" stated that global communication or
airplanes were impossible it was that mankind did not have a complete
understanding of the science (and natural laws) governing such
things. The curiosity and creative ability of mankind in carrying
out research led to the understanding of the natural laws that then
allowed for the development of the technology we observe today (and
take for granted to a certain extent).
Perhaps, there have been and always will be people who state that this
or that is impossible based on current knowledge but other people will
not allow themselves to be limited by existing knowledge and it is
these people who expand our knowledge of our world and discovery/
invent new technologies. As my post-doctoral advisor would always
state when we presented data from some rather unconventional
experiments "These are the kind of data generated by young researchers
because us old researchers think that the experiment can not be
done". Google the Zen concept of "Beginner's mind".
> Reality is a broad frontier, and the rules we make about it are
> man-made. So to take a rigid position that the rules of reality are
> unchangeable is to halt in your pursuit of knowledge.
You are correct about reality being a broad frontier. We still have
so much to learn about the world we live in. But, again, the natural
laws are not "man-made", just undiscovered or not well-understood.
And, no respectable scientist/engineer hold rigidly to existing
knowledge if presented with convincing data/evidence. There are
numerous examples where scientists accepted new knowledge when
confronted with convincing evidence. So, there is no halt in the
pursuit of knowledge. Maybe, some "healthy" initial skepticism exists
among scientists/engineers but this forces scientists/engineers to
make sure their data is not faulty or attributable to artifacts.
Google "cold fusion" for an example.
If anything, the rigid, immutable beliefs of religious fundamentalists
is what halts the pursuit of knowledge. Why study this or that if it
can be explained as "who are we to question why God made the world the
way it is". I believe the fundamentalists problem with science/
knowledge is that the boundary of science and our understanding of the
world is constantly changing. It seems to me that the fundamentalists
rather live in a world where everything is known and unchanging. How
boring!
Now, back to your original hypothetical. If the person who was raised
from the dead immediately turned to you and stated that Zeus sent him
back to tell mankind that the monotheistic religions were false, would
you give up your "core Christian beliefs"?
<snipped>
MWN
chris.li...@gmail.com
> Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know much about how the church
> > itself operates, but I am under the
> > impression that it has stricter standards
> > for declaring official miracles than the
> > average believer does.
>
> For medical "miracles," the standards are
> pretty tight. In fact, on their surface they
> might seem quite reasonable.
Are they really? They seem pretty credulous when it comes to the
Mother Teresa healing miracles.
>
> The problem is, you can't apply them to
> "medical science" of, say, 100 years ago
> without resulting in many "Miracles" that
> could be conventionally explained today.
Yah, that would be a problem.
> One need only imagine that the same will
> be true 100 years from now in order to see
> the issue...
Their hats are running low on rabbits.
Chris
wf...@comcast.net
>
>> >Zoe wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> the rules of reality are man-made. As soon as further understanding
>> of the universe increases, the rules of reality change. Once upon a
>> time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>> talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe. The rules of
>> reality once said that the sun went around the earth. What about the
>> rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>> metal to defy gravity and fly?
>
>Zoe, what do you mean by "rules of reality"?
my impression is that when she's comparing 'moral' laws ('gods laws')
to laws of nature she thinks the former are objective and the latter
are not.
seems to me to be a typical creationist concept...since the laws of
nature depend on god they can't be objective, whereas since the laws
of morality depend on god they must be objective.
clear?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:34:16 GMT, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>>
>>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>>
>>Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
>>order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
>>restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
>>plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
>>those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
>>hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
>
>the rules of reality are man-made.
So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
different?
> As soon as further understanding
>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
> Once upon a
>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
That is still true.
>The rules of
>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
No, that was the stupidity of some men.
>What about the
>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>metal to defy gravity and fly?
Those are still true.
>
>Reality is a broad frontier, and the rules we make about it are
>man-made.
No, our interpretation of reality may be coloured by man, but reality
is reality.
> So to take a rigid position that the rules of reality are
>unchangeable is to halt in your pursuit of knowledge.
Rubbish.
[snip]
--
Bob.
MWN
I think I may have blew a synapse or two trying to understand this
typical creationist concept. Sounds like Humpty-Dumpty logic: "When I
use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor
less."
Sometimes I wonder why the creationists just do not go and live like
the Amish. I respect the Amish, they know about all about the modern
world but just choose to not live in it. I have a feeling that
creationists are secretly jealous of how the rest of us live so they
just try to destroy our world to make themselves feel better.
MWN
Slimebot McGoo
>On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:34:16 GMT, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>>
>>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>>
>>Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
>>order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
>>restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
>>plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
>>those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
>>hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
>
>the rules of reality are man-made.
The "rules of reality" are discovered by humans, not made by them. Our
understanding of them changes, not the rules themselves.
You're compelled to attack scientific change as if it's a flaw in
order to avoid facing the fundamental flaw in the inflexibility of
your own religious belief - absolutes are its weakness, but you can't
abandon them because they're also its attraction. Too bad for you,
but at least you're apparently immune to embarrassment.
McGoo
Mark Nutter
> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
Your conclusion fails to correct for the possibility that the
"disbelieving" responses may have been driven as much by the structure
and context of the test as by the intended content of the test. The
test describes an incident which is, shall we say, not characteristic
of real world events. Consequently, you have at best assessed your
respondents' attitudes toward contrived, fictional evidence, not their
attitudes towards real-world evidence. What your test really shows is
that almost half the posters have attitudes which prevent them from
treating fictional evidence as real-world evidence.
> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>
> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
That is more likely to reflect a flaw in the construction of the test
than to reflect the respondents' actual attitude towards real-world
evidence.
m
Richard Clayton
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:34:16 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Zoe wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>>
>>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>> Misinterpreted, as usual. It's just that everyone ranked hypotheses in
>> order of plausibility. The hypothesis that a stern talking-to can
>> restore the dead to life just had to stand in line behind several more
>> plausible ones, such as trickery, hallucination, and such. Now if all
>> those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set of
>> hypotheses to explain why the rules of reality had suddenly changed;
>
> the rules of reality are man-made. As soon as further understanding
> of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
No. The rules of reality exist independent of human thought or endeavor.
> Once upon a
> time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
> talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe. The rules of
> reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
No, the Earth has ALWAYS orbited the Sun. People just didn't know it.
The laws of physics we use to communicate from opposite sides of the
globe ALWAYS existed; we simply didn't know about them or how to use
them to our advantage.
> What about the
> rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
> metal to defy gravity and fly?
No hunk of metal flies by defying gravity; please note that gravity's
effect on an airplane in air is just as strong as it would be if the
plane were still on the ground. However, we do know how to take
advantage of the physics of gases to create a force that pulls upward on
the aircraft even more strongly than gravity pulls downward-- therefore,
the plane flies.
> Reality is a broad frontier, and the rules we make about it are
> man-made.
Reality existed long before men did and will exist long after we are
gone. Our UNDERSTANDING of reality is man-made and fallible, but don't
mistake our current understanding (at any date) for a perfect reflection
of the real universe.
> So to take a rigid position that the rules of reality are
> unchangeable is to halt in your pursuit of knowledge.
The rules of reality unchanged since ancient times. (We know this
because we can look back in time with deep space telescopes, and we find
that physics worked the same way then as it does now.) Only our
understanding of reality has changed.
>> "magic" is a good umbrella term. The problem is that such an event would
>> call into question everything we know, including how we can use science
>> to know anything.
>>
>>> The second largest group of posters to the threads were either unable
>>> to or refused to reveal their core beliefs, and instead posted
>>> irrelevancies. That's okay. This is done in fun.
>>>
>>> The smallest number showed that they were in control of their core
>>> beliefs, rather than being controlled by their core beliefs.
>>>
>>> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
>> You didn't participate. Where's your answer?
>
> my answer was that I would be very interested to know how it was done;
> I would hope to question the stranger, as a start. I have been to a
> couple of magic shows in my lifetime, at the end of which I wanted to
> interview the magician in hopes of learning how they performed their
> tricks. If they had been willing to share, I am sure they could
> explain how they created the illusion.
What if, after the show, the illusionist insisted that what he did
really WAS magic? Would you simply take his word for it? Or would you
apply a healthy dose of skepticism?
> If, however, they were to give as an explanation that they became
> possessed by some higher power that they could not explain, and were
> thus able to perform some of the tricks that they admitted were
> clearly not illusion, then that would be a dead end for me because I
> don't intend to try to interview higher powers that I am not
> acquainted with. They might turn out to be the wrong kind of powers.
You actually gave the right answer, but for the wrong reason. If the
stage magician insisted that his powers weren't simply illusion but real
magic, and would not allow himself to be investigated further, you WOULD
hit a dead end, only because we possess no meaningful or reliable
methods for investigating allegedly supernatural forces. Gods, demons,
spirits, kami, and the like cannot be subjected to any sort of
scientific study, nor do they give interviews. "The wrong kind of
powers" is a non-starter itself, because you wouldn't even have any way
to KNOW what the powers are, let alone whether they are the wrong sort.
> But getting back to interviewing the stranger. If he claimed that he
> himself had the power to resurrect, was not possessed by some higher
> power but was himself the higher power...well, now I'd have to
> seriously consider whether to stay or to run. I'd have to observe
> this stranger further before going any further.
And your only recourse for such observations would come from the
scientific method. "What do I know about the corpses he apparently
resurrected? Did I examine them personally? How long had they been dead?
Could this be a con or hoax? Could the coroner be in on it? Can the
'miracle-worker' repeat the experiment under conditions that I specify
and control?"
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Bobby Bryant
Suppose you read the story in an old book. What would your conclusion
be...
a) ...if the book said the stranger was Jesus?
b) ...if the book said the stranger was Asclepius?
Same answer both ways? If not, why not?
JTEM
> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For medical "miracles," the standards are
> > pretty tight. In fact, on their surface they
> > might seem quite reasonable.
>
> Are they really?
Yes.
> They seem pretty credulous when it comes
> to the Mother Teresa healing miracles.
I'm not aware of any details.
The criteria for medical miracles is pretty strict,
going far beyond anything the average person
might consider a "miracle."
Ironically, the one thing all medical "miracles"
share in common is a complete trust in medical
science.
Think about it. Unless you complete accept the
medical opinion that a condition is beyond hope,
completely surrender to the authority of medical
science, you can't have a miracle.
Instead you'd have, "The doctor got it wrong."
So, all medical "miracles" require an unyielding
faith in medical science.
Zoe
wrote:
we have the same attitude towards claims like this.
>
>And I've seen this sort of thing over and over again with religious
>believers. They are so obsessed with clinging to their "core beliefs"
>that they think everybody else is so afflicted. They pose questions like
>the OP, thinking that they are proving that skeptics are so close-minded
>that no amount of "evidence" will ever convince them.
well, if, as you say, the mark of a religious believer is that they
are so close-minded that no amount of evidence contrary to their core
beliefs would convince them, then I guess that wherever you find that
kind of close-mindedness, such a one would be like a religious
believer, if not actually a religious believer?
The goal of this hypothetical was to identify the various points on a
spectrum of closed-minded to open-mindedness at which posters fell.
> But what they
>don't want to realize is that some of us *have* looked closer at
>miraculous claims. And when you've seen enough such claims evaporate in
>the cold hard light of scrutiny, it is only reasonable to expect that the
>latest miracle is just going to be more of the same.
okay. But the hypothetical is that of personal observation of the
resurrection of a dead man who has already been cut open on an
examiner's table. If this is the first time that you personally
observe this, and since it is not in the same category as the rosary
example, do you automatically conclude that it is a trick and forget
about it? Or do you investigate further?
Zoe
there were two threads. The hypothetical of the first thread
(probably the 25-post one) was not detailed enough so I started over
with another thread titled "The hypothetical again."
Also, there are only a few anti-evolutionists on this forum, and I
imagine that they have time for only their threads, for the most part.
Even so, I don't think the hypothetical would test them because it
might be in line with their core belief that there is intelligence
outside of nature...is my guess. They would need a different
hypothetical, more like the one I proposed to Joe Cummings.
>
>If you want to do a meaningful survey of who investigates further vs
>who uses an observation to just validate a pre-held belief, then
>compare evolutionists to anti-evolution activists. As a particularly
>illuminating example, compare how Muller worked on "interlocking
>complexity" for years, while Behe, who has repackaged Muller's idea,
>has not taken the first step toward investigating it, but rather has
>been spinning misrepresentations and peddling incredulity for 11+
>years.
I was merely interested in posters to talk origins, not in
evolutionists and anti-evolutionists generally.
snip>
Zoe
>
>> >Zoe wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> the rules of reality are man-made. As soon as further understanding
>> of the universe increases, the rules of reality change. Once upon a
>> time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>> talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe. The rules of
>> reality once said that the sun went around the earth. What about the
>> rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>> metal to defy gravity and fly?
>
>Zoe, what do you mean by "rules of reality"?
I was using John Harshman's term, as found in his last post: "Now if
all those could be ruled out, we would be left with another whole set
of hypotheses to explain why the RULES OF REALITY had suddenly
changed..." (caps mine).
Maybe I should have asked him what he meant by rules of reality. I
took it for granted that he meant man's description of the laws of
nature, as perceived by man, not the laws themselves.
reading your perspective, I would have to now enlarge my small group
of five to six...those who are open minded enough to investigate
further.
>
>If anything, the rigid, immutable beliefs of religious fundamentalists
>is what halts the pursuit of knowledge. Why study this or that if it
>can be explained as "who are we to question why God made the world the
>way it is". I believe the fundamentalists problem with science/
>knowledge is that the boundary of science and our understanding of the
>world is constantly changing. It seems to me that the fundamentalists
>rather live in a world where everything is known and unchanging. How
>boring!
I can only speak for myself.
>
>Now, back to your original hypothetical. If the person who was raised
>from the dead immediately turned to you and stated that Zeus sent him
>back to tell mankind that the monotheistic religions were false, would
>you give up your "core Christian beliefs"?
at the point where I began to figure out my beliefs for myself, my
core belief was and still is that intelligence exists outside of
nature. From that core belief, my studies led in a direction that
affirmed Christianity for me. Therefore, someone raising the dead and
then claiming that he was Zeus would certainly challenge my Christian
beliefs, but not my core belief.
Mark Nutter
>
> The goal of this hypothetical was to identify the various points on a
> spectrum of closed-minded to open-mindedness at which posters fell.
The structure of the test, however, was such that it effectively
measured only how "open-minded" respondents were to fictional
evidence. That's an extremely significant flaw in your study. You
could correct this flaw by proposing that your hypothetical occurred
in a larger context of self-consistency, i.e. by suggesting that this
same mystery man was well-known to have raised a number of people from
the dead, and had done so on-camera, and was willing and able to
resurrect any arbitrarily-chosen corpse selected by the skeptics, and
so on.
Of course, framing your test in that way would also highlight the
inconsistencies between your scenario and the real world.
I suspect that some of the respondents might answer differently if you
modify your scenario as I've proposed above. How about it, folks? If
the phenomenon being demonstrated were part of a larger context in
which it were possible to demonstrate the phenomenon consistently,
under conditions controlled by the skeptics, with appropriate
controls, etc., would you regard it as being worthy of further
investigation?
m
Zoe
man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
laws of nature. In an alien world, the aliens would make up the rules
of reality to describe their understanding of the laws of their world.
>
>> As soon as further understanding
>>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
>
>More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
true, in many instances.
>
>> Once upon a
>>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
>
>That is still true.
?? Is it impossible today to talk to each other from opposite sides
of the globe?
>
>>The rules of
>>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
>
>No, that was the stupidity of some men.
it is our "stupidity" (I prefer "lack of knowledge") that causes us to
fall short of describing reality fully. We make up rules of reality
as we understand reality, but those rules can change with an increase
in knowledge.
>
>>What about the
>>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>>metal to defy gravity and fly?
>
>Those are still true.
you are losing me, Old One. What is true? That it is impossible for
a hunk of metal to overcome (if you don't like "defy) gravity, and
fly?
snip>
Bloopen...@juno.com
Certainly worthy of further *investigation.* Belief ought to only come
*after* the investigation though.
Zoe
<pockZIGe...@verizon.net> wrote:
snip>
>
> What if, after the show, the illusionist insisted that what he did
>really WAS magic? Would you simply take his word for it? Or would you
>apply a healthy dose of skepticism?
what is your understanding of real magic?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
I'd need more context before deciding who the stranger was. What old
book?
>
>b) ...if the book said the stranger was Asclepius?
which book is this?
>
>Same answer both ways? If not, why not?
can't answer any further without more information.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
> In an alien world, the aliens would make up the rules
>of reality to describe their understanding of the laws of their world.
No, they need to make nothing up.
>>
>>> As soon as further understanding
>>>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
>>
>>More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
>
>true, in many instances.
>>
>>> Once upon a
>>>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>>>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
>>
>>That is still true.
>
>?? Is it impossible today to talk to each other from opposite sides
>of the globe?
Yes. Sound waves do not travel that far.
We can, using modern technology, communicate with each other from the
far reaches of our planet (and beyond) but that is NOT the same thing.
>>
>>>The rules of
>>>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
>>
>>No, that was the stupidity of some men.
>
>it is our "stupidity" (I prefer "lack of knowledge")
No, the knowledge that the earth went round the sun seems to be very
old, it is just that the Judeo-christian religion stupidly rejected it
for so long.
> that causes us to
>fall short of describing reality fully. We make up rules of reality
>as we understand reality, but those rules can change with an increase
>in knowledge.
Nononono! Religion makes up things - it is one of the reasons religion
will always fail in the end.
>>
>>>What about the
>>>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>>>metal to defy gravity and fly?
>>
>>Those are still true.
>
>you are losing me, Old One. What is true? That it is impossible for
>a hunk of metal to overcome (if you don't like "defy) gravity, and
>fly?
Yes. Exactly.
>
>snip>
--
Bob.
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:6ucc53ha0f1ss8q3r...@4ax.com...
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>How does skepticism get you get to this conclusion, Zoe? That people don't
>leap to the conclusion that what they've witnessed was a miracle is hardly
>surprising.
I was not looking for people to leap to the conclusion that it was a
miracle. I was looking for open minds that, when confronted with hard
evidence (hypothetically speaking) would want to investigate further.
> Even most people of faith do not do this. If we take for granted
>that mircacles exist, they must be rare, or hypotheses about the natural
>world would fail too often to have merit. Also, the existence of frauds is
>well known. Skepticism about a purported miracle is simply good policy.
skepticism, if followed by investigation and research, is more
productive than skepticism followed by ridicule and turning away from
(hypothetical) hard evidence.
>
>Furthermore, miraculous causes are not accessible to investigation. Science
>can fail to arrive at a natural explanation. It cannot produce a
>supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are outside of science.
supernatural or miraculous is, imo, just a label for laws and
interaction of laws that we don't yet understand.
>
Zoe
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 20:56:31 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing the responses as categorized by you, Zoe.
>For example, how did you classify mine, where I drew no conclusion,
>but asked how likely the various scenarios were? Which ones did you
>consider irrelevant? Enquiring minds want to know.
I tallied you under the "doubt senses, disbelief" column, Raven.
Zoe
wrote:
>On May 24, 5:56 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>
>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>
>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
>I'm certainly not going to claim that your conclusions are wrong, but
>you really didn't test them with your question. "Prevent them from
>investigating *any* type of hard evidence..."? Your question
>certainly did not plumb that sort of depth.
true.
>
>And while your at it, I'd say that your answer to my question rather
>indicated you were predisposed to attach religous significance to a
>seemingly metaphysical occurance. A man turns you into a blue jay and
>you immediately think in terms of being on his side.
why not? I enjoyed the flight. What's religious about that?
> Your core is not
>without bias.
actually, this hypothetical does not test my core. My answer to Joe
Cummings' thread on "Help for Zoe" contains the type of hypothetical
that I think would test my core beliefs. Here it is again.
Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
change morphologically. At the end of several years, while some
bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
systems, others are more plant-like.
If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
to change my core beliefs.
Pfusand
> On 24 May 2007 18:58:50 -0700, Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:> >No, it isn't. You have not dealt with the questions put to you there.
>
> questions or demands?
Several people who obligingly responded to your "hypothetical" asked
you questions. It would be polite to reply.
> If I remember right, there were a lot of
> demands from you for apologies.
That's right. You told lies about me.
> Pfusand, if I have harmed you in any way, I apologize. It was not my
> intent.
That is not an apology. The "if I have..." construct turns it into a
weasely little dodge. For you to produce an apology, you will have to
identify what made your comments offensive (i.e., your exact lies),
and respond to those in particular, either by correction or by
mitigation.
> >> Using as little rigor as I
> >> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> >> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> >> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> >> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> >> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> >> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> >Since you have not identified which answer you have placed in which
> >category, you do not actually have "results." I certainly don't
> >recognize *any* of those categories as suiting my response.
>
> I didn't think posters would want me identifying them with positions
> that tagged them as unscientific.
Your "hypothetical" bears the same resemblence to a scientific
hypothesis that a cargo cult airstrip bears to Heathrow Airport.
Therefore, your tags would leave their withers as unwrung (so to
speak) as those of any other cargo cultist.
> But since you ask, I had you under
> the column for "tricks" "not believing" "doubt senses."
I see. You have chosen to entirely ignore the last paragraph
describing my actions, the one that begins "Therefore, I would have to
conclude that the stranger has the ability to, essentially, reverse
entropy." Or, perhaps, you simply did not understand what I wrote.
So, which of your core beliefs does this failure show?
> If I had made
> a category for oversensitivity, then you surely would have been placed
> there.
Of course. Would everyone else who pointed out your various errors
and biases been placed in this category as well? You know, it seems
that one of your core beliefs is "Since I (Zoe) am virtuous, I must
always be correct and knowledgable."
> >> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> >> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> >> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
> >So, are we to deduce that you think 19 of 47 is "almost half"? Or is
> >it 19 of 29?
>
> there you go ago -- quibbling over the dressing instead of the meat.
> But for you, I'll try to be more rigorous. Half of 47 (if it was
> truly 47) is 23-1/2. 19, in my liberal books, is almost 23-1/2, four
> and one-half persons short of half.
(Muted applause.) The claim that 40.4% is "almost half" is a perfect
example of cargo cultism. Brava.
(snip)
> >> Research project in the sandbox is over. Thank you for participating.
>
> >You really don't understand the meaning of the term "research," do
> >you?
>
> well, that's the kind of research found in sandboxes, I guess.
Toooo tempting.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Inez
> On 24 May 2007 21:11:27 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 5:56 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
> >> can get by with, here are the results:
>
> >> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
> >> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
> >> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
> >> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
> >> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>
> >> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
> >> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
> >> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>
> >I'm certainly not going to claim that your conclusions are wrong, but
> >you really didn't test them with your question. "Prevent them from
> >investigating *any* type of hard evidence..."? Your question
> >certainly did not plumb that sort of depth.
>
> true.
>
>
>
> >And while your at it, I'd say that your answer to my question rather
> >indicated you were predisposed to attach religous significance to a
> >seemingly metaphysical occurance. A man turns you into a blue jay and
> >you immediately think in terms of being on his side.
>
> why not? I enjoyed the flight. What's religious about that?
That wasn't the part I meant. The part where you quickly decided you
should "be on his right side" showed the subservience to power urge
that is common amongst religious folk.
> > Your core is not
> >without bias.
>
> actually, this hypothetical does not test my core. My answer to Joe
> Cummings' thread on "Help for Zoe" contains the type of hypothetical
> that I think would test my core beliefs. Here it is again.
>
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, while some
> bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.-
That doesn't test your core bias, that changes your core bias.
Frank J
In the case of IDers it's more like wanting it both ways - that
intelligence is conveniently outside of nature, yet empirically
detectable by "naturalistic" methods. Ironically that line of argument
could have been much more creative, if not scientific, if they were
not a slave to the "big tent." In ID's early days Michael Behe
actually proposed how that design could have been actuated, when, and
in which lineages, with the simplest explanation that there is only
one lineage. Sadly the bean counters got to him with "ixnay on the
ommondescentcay."
> They would need a different
> hypothetical, more like the one I proposed to Joe Cummings.
>
>
>
> >If you want to do a meaningful survey of who investigates further vs
> >who uses an observation to just validate a pre-held belief, then
> >compare evolutionists to anti-evolution activists. As a particularly
> >illuminating example, compare how Muller worked on "interlocking
> >complexity" for years, while Behe, who has repackaged Muller's idea,
> >has not taken the first step toward investigating it, but rather has
> >been spinning misrepresentations and peddling incredulity for 11+
> >years.
>
> I was merely interested in posters to talk origins, not in
> evolutionists and anti-evolutionists generally.
>
> snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark VandeWettering
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 20:04:18 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
><res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:6ucc53ha0f1ss8q3r...@4ax.com...
>>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>>
>>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>>
>>How does skepticism get you get to this conclusion, Zoe? That people don't
>>leap to the conclusion that what they've witnessed was a miracle is hardly
>>surprising.
>
> I was not looking for people to leap to the conclusion that it was a
> miracle. I was looking for open minds that, when confronted with hard
> evidence (hypothetically speaking) would want to investigate further.
Perhaps you should have asked a different question then. You didn't
ask us "what would you do?" You asked:
ZOE> If this scenario were to happen to you, what would your
ZOE> conclusion be?
>> Even most people of faith do not do this. If we take for granted
>>that mircacles exist, they must be rare, or hypotheses about the natural
>>world would fail too often to have merit. Also, the existence of frauds is
>>well known. Skepticism about a purported miracle is simply good policy.
>
> skepticism, if followed by investigation and research, is more
> productive than skepticism followed by ridicule and turning away from
> (hypothetical) hard evidence.
Nobody said they would do that. Not one.
>>Furthermore, miraculous causes are not accessible to investigation. Science
>>can fail to arrive at a natural explanation. It cannot produce a
>>supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are outside of science.
>
> supernatural or miraculous is, imo, just a label for laws and
> interaction of laws that we don't yet understand.
No. They are not.
Mark
Richard Clayton
What do you mean by "understanding"? I have seen no evidence that
anything I could term "magic" exists.
Bobby Bryant
Why does it matter?
>>b) ...if the book said the stranger was Asclepius?
>
> which book is this?
>>
>>Same answer both ways? If not, why not?
>
> can't answer any further without more information.
Werewolfy
> So, all medical "miracles" require an unyielding
> faith in medical science.
How's the old public toilets these days then, JTEM? Still hanging
around after little boys?
My but you like wandering aound all of these 'gay boy' sites on the
internet, don't you?
Discrimination? Oh yes indeed. I discriminate against your disgusting
sexual habits. Men 'playing' with young boys. You should be castrated.
Werewolfy
Zoe
you still aren't paying attention. IDers say that intelligent design
is detectable by scientific methods, but the source of intelligence
may or may not be detectable, so detecting the source is not the goal.
The same way nature is used to extrapolate back to a first common
ancestor that cannot be investigated, it can be used to extrapolate
back to a first intelligence that cannot be investigated.
Allow me to repeat the main point of what was just said:
Recognition of intelligent design belongs to the scientific method.
Recognition and/or study of the source of intelligent design does not
belong to the scientific method.
>Ironically that line of argument
>could have been much more creative, if not scientific, if they were
>not a slave to the "big tent." In ID's early days Michael Behe
>actually proposed how that design could have been actuated, when, and
>in which lineages, with the simplest explanation that there is only
>one lineage. Sadly the bean counters got to him with "ixnay on the
>ommondescentcay."
the simplest explanation for the variety of automobiles is that they
all came off the same assembly line from the same Model-T. The
simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation. Behe may
have eensay that ightlay.
snip>
Zoe
>On May 25, 9:55 pm, muz...@aol.com wrote:
>> On 24 May 2007 18:58:50 -0700, Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 24, 8:56 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over.
>>
>> >No, it isn't. You have not dealt with the questions put to you there.
>>
>> questions or demands?
>
>Several people who obligingly responded to your "hypothetical" asked
>you questions. It would be polite to reply.
>
>> If I remember right, there were a lot of
>> demands from you for apologies.
>
>That's right. You told lies about me.
Pfu, Pfu, Pfu, there are others in the world besides you. Come back
to reality. If you choose to insert yourself into a post that has not
once used your name, and then get insulted by it....well, I think you
must live a very difficult life in which everyone is insulting you on
a minute-by-minute basis. Please know that this is not so.
I like to think that you are an honest, decent, intelligent woman who
sincerely goes about her work and worldview without looking nervously
or angrily over her shoulder.
>
>> Pfusand, if I have harmed you in any way, I apologize. It was not my
>> intent.
>
>That is not an apology. The "if I have..." construct turns it into a
>weasely little dodge. For you to produce an apology, you will have to
>identify what made your comments offensive (i.e., your exact lies),
>and respond to those in particular, either by correction or by
>mitigation.
okay, dear one, please produce the offensive, lying comments that I
have directed personally at you, and I will weigh them carefully as to
their need for an apology.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
snip>
Zoe
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>>>the rules of reality are man-made.
>>>
>>>So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
>>>different?
>>
>>man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
>>laws of nature.
>
>No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
okay, I'll be more precise. Man described his understanding of the
behaviors of nature and called them laws or rules of reality.
>
>> In an alien world, the aliens would make up the rules
>>of reality to describe their understanding of the laws of their world.
>
>No, they need to make nothing up.
I didn't mean to use "make up" in the sense of fabrication. Allow me
to use better words. Aliens would describe their reality with words
that reflected their best understanding of the behaviors of their
reality.
>>>
>>>> As soon as further understanding
>>>>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
>>>
>>>More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
>>
>>true, in many instances.
>>>
>>>> Once upon a
>>>>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>>>>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
>>>
>>>That is still true.
>>
>>?? Is it impossible today to talk to each other from opposite sides
>>of the globe?
>
>Yes. Sound waves do not travel that far.
>
>We can, using modern technology, communicate with each other from the
>far reaches of our planet (and beyond) but that is NOT the same thing.
I did not say sound waves. I said "talk." You have just described
the means by which this talk can occur. Thank you.
Back to the point: There was a time when being able to talk (via the
means you have described) to someone on the other side of the globe
would have been considered miraculous and therefore, impossible.
>>>
>>>>The rules of
>>>>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
>>>
>>>No, that was the stupidity of some men.
>>
>>it is our "stupidity" (I prefer "lack of knowledge")
>
>No, the knowledge that the earth went round the sun seems to be very
>old, it is just that the Judeo-christian religion stupidly rejected it
>for so long.
and while "the Judeo-Christian religion stupidly rejected it," where
were the other scientists that recognized this stupidity during this
time? One finally spoke out. He was considered ignorant, stupid and
unscientific by the majority of then scientists. Could history repeat
itself, this time with a different group of people and a different
issue?
>
>> that causes us to
>>fall short of describing reality fully. We make up rules of reality
>>as we understand reality, but those rules can change with an increase
>>in knowledge.
>
>Nononono! Religion makes up things - it is one of the reasons religion
>will always fail in the end.
I see the words "make up" has quite diverted your attention. If you
were to replace "make up" with "describe", would you be able to agree
with the main point?
>>>
>>>>What about the
>>>>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>>>>metal to defy gravity and fly?
>>>
>>>Those are still true.
>>
>>you are losing me, Old One. What is true? That it is impossible for
>>a hunk of metal to overcome (if you don't like "defy) gravity, and
>>fly?
>
>Yes. Exactly.
okay, tell me what is going on then with rockets and airplanes if you
insist that it is impossible for a hunk of metal to overcome gravity
and fly.
Zoe
<pockZIGe...@verizon.net> wrote:
I want to know what you understand of the thing that you have termed
"magic" and of which you see no evidence of its existence. To say
something does not exist, you must have some idea of what that
something is purported to be. So what is your understanding of "real
magic" that enables you to say that it does not exist?
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now please answer _my_ question.
>>>>
>>>> would you repeat the question, please?
>>>
>>>Suppose you read the story in an old book. What would your conclusion
>>>be...
>>>
>>>a) ...if the book said the stranger was Jesus?
>>
>> I'd need more context before deciding who the stranger was. What old
>> book?
>
>Why does it matter?
because I would like to form my conclusion based on more information
than just some vague "old book." If you refuse to clarify further,
then I would have to say that the story was a myth, based on the fact
that I have nothing else to boost my confidence in the "old book."
snip>
Zoe
what you do follows what you think.
Conclusion: it's another parlor trick.
Action: investigate no further.
Conclusion: it's a genuine occurrence.
Action: investigate further....or try to kill the evidence (zombie!).
>
>>> Even most people of faith do not do this. If we take for granted
>>>that mircacles exist, they must be rare, or hypotheses about the natural
>>>world would fail too often to have merit. Also, the existence of frauds is
>>>well known. Skepticism about a purported miracle is simply good policy.
>>
>> skepticism, if followed by investigation and research, is more
>> productive than skepticism followed by ridicule and turning away from
>> (hypothetical) hard evidence.
>
>Nobody said they would do that. Not one.
I counted only those who said they would investigate and require
repeatability. Do you want me to make up the statistics by guessing
at what was not said?
>
>>>Furthermore, miraculous causes are not accessible to investigation. Science
>>>can fail to arrive at a natural explanation. It cannot produce a
>>>supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are outside of science.
>>
>> supernatural or miraculous is, imo, just a label for laws and
>> interaction of laws that we don't yet understand.
>
>No. They are not.
Yes. They are. (Where has that gotten us?)
Zoe
wrote:
>On May 27, 11:49 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 24 May 2007 21:11:27 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
snip>
>> >And while your at it, I'd say that your answer to my question rather
>> >indicated you were predisposed to attach religous significance to a
>> >seemingly metaphysical occurance. A man turns you into a blue jay and
>> >you immediately think in terms of being on his side.
>>
>> why not? I enjoyed the flight. What's religious about that?
>
>That wasn't the part I meant. The part where you quickly decided you
>should "be on his right side" showed the subservience to power urge
>that is common amongst religious folk.
then I submit that religious folk have more common sense sense than
the non-religious who think it is a brave and admirable thing to stand
up against a power that is clearly more powerful than they are (we're
still in the hypothetical, remember) that even if this power could
crush them like a flea, they will show their bravery, anyway, and be
crushed.
That is why I would investigate further. If this greater power turned
out to be one that had my wellbeing at heart, I would follow him. If
this greater power turned out to be one that wanted to crush me, then
and only then would I refuse "subservience" and fight against him with
every strategy I could muster. And if I were crushed, at least I
would have gone down fighting.
But why would I take the chance of fighting someone who was about to
not only turn me into a bluejay, but give me super abundance in life?
I would investigate first.
>
>> > Your core is not
>> >without bias.
>>
>> actually, this hypothetical does not test my core. My answer to Joe
>> Cummings' thread on "Help for Zoe" contains the type of hypothetical
>> that I think would test my core beliefs. Here it is again.
>>
>> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
>> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
>> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
>> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
>> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
>> change morphologically. At the end of several years, while some
>> bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
>> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
>> systems, others are more plant-like.
>>
>> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
>> to change my core beliefs.-
>
>That doesn't test your core bias, that changes your core bias.
in order to change my core belief or bias, I would first have to have
that belief tested. If the belief failed the test, then I'd better
change.
So what do you think about the hypothetical of the bacteria, anyway.
Is this a reality in your world, or just an unsupported hypothetical?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:11 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>zoe wrote:
>
>>>>>the rules of reality are man-made.
>>>>
>>>>So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
>>>>different?
>>>
>>>man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
>>>laws of nature.
>>
>>No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
>
>okay, I'll be more precise. Man described his understanding of the
>behaviors of nature and called them laws or rules of reality.
Mankind searches for the laws of nature. Those laws are universal and
define reality for both us and any alien race out there.
>>
>>> In an alien world, the aliens would make up the rules
>>>of reality to describe their understanding of the laws of their world.
>>
>>No, they need to make nothing up.
>
>I didn't mean to use "make up" in the sense of fabrication.
Then why use the term?
> Allow me
>to use better words. Aliens would describe their reality with words
>that reflected their best understanding of the behaviors of their
>reality.
But the reality, the laws of nature, are universal.
>>>>
>>>>> As soon as further understanding
>>>>>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
>>>>
>>>>More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
>>>
>>>true, in many instances.
>>>>
>>>>> Once upon a
>>>>>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>>>>>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
>>>>
>>>>That is still true.
>>>
>>>?? Is it impossible today to talk to each other from opposite sides
>>>of the globe?
>>
>>Yes. Sound waves do not travel that far.
>>
>>We can, using modern technology, communicate with each other from the
>>far reaches of our planet (and beyond) but that is NOT the same thing.
>
>I did not say sound waves. I said "talk."
Yes, something which requires close proximity.
> You have just described
>the means by which this talk can occur. Thank you.
>
>Back to the point: There was a time when being able to talk (via the
>means you have described) to someone on the other side of the globe
>would have been considered miraculous and therefore, impossible.
To some people it still is.
>
>>>>
>>>>>The rules of
>>>>>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
>>>>
>>>>No, that was the stupidity of some men.
>>>
>>>it is our "stupidity" (I prefer "lack of knowledge")
>>
>>No, the knowledge that the earth went round the sun seems to be very
>>old, it is just that the Judeo-christian religion stupidly rejected it
>>for so long.
>
>and while "the Judeo-Christian religion stupidly rejected it," where
>were the other scientists that recognized this stupidity during this
>time? One finally spoke out. He was considered ignorant, stupid and
>unscientific by the majority of then scientists.
They were not real scientists.
> Could history repeat
>itself, this time with a different group of people and a different
>issue?
Nope. Modern science does not ignore evidence just because religion
say they should.
>>
>>> that causes us to
>>>fall short of describing reality fully. We make up rules of reality
>>>as we understand reality, but those rules can change with an increase
>>>in knowledge.
>>
>>Nononono! Religion makes up things - it is one of the reasons religion
>>will always fail in the end.
>
>I see the words "make up" has quite diverted your attention. If you
>were to replace "make up" with "describe", would you be able to agree
>with the main point?
You used the words "make up", not me.
>>>>
>>>>>What about the
>>>>>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>>>>>metal to defy gravity and fly?
>>>>
>>>>Those are still true.
>>>
>>>you are losing me, Old One. What is true? That it is impossible for
>>>a hunk of metal to overcome (if you don't like "defy) gravity, and
>>>fly?
>>
>>Yes. Exactly.
>
>okay, tell me what is going on then with rockets and airplanes if you
>insist that it is impossible for a hunk of metal to overcome gravity
>and fly.
They do not overcome gravity. And they are far from being "hunks of
metal".
--
Bob.
R. Baldwin
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 20:04:18 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:6ucc53ha0f1ss8q3r...@4ax.com...
>>> Okay, the sandbox questionnaire is over. Using as little rigor as I
>>> can get by with, here are the results:
>>>
>>> Tallying responses to the Core belief hypothetical threads, there were
>>> about, I think, 47 responses, of which about 19 responses
>>> demonstrated outright disbelief of an observed phenomenon,
>>> approximately 18 gave irrelevant responses, 5 simply didn't know what
>>> they would conclude, and 5 said they would investigate further.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
>>> beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
>>> evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.
>>
>>How does skepticism get you get to this conclusion, Zoe? That people don't
>>leap to the conclusion that what they've witnessed was a miracle is hardly
>>surprising.
>
> I was not looking for people to leap to the conclusion that it was a
> miracle. I was looking for open minds that, when confronted with hard
> evidence (hypothetically speaking) would want to investigate further.
I got the impression you were looking for the immediate conclusion.
Mark VandeWettering
I'm sorry, but your conclusions and actions don't actually flow logically.
You aren't justified in inferring what actions that someone would take
given this conclusion.
>>>> Even most people of faith do not do this. If we take for granted
>>>>that mircacles exist, they must be rare, or hypotheses about the natural
>>>>world would fail too often to have merit. Also, the existence of frauds is
>>>>well known. Skepticism about a purported miracle is simply good policy.
>>>
>>> skepticism, if followed by investigation and research, is more
>>> productive than skepticism followed by ridicule and turning away from
>>> (hypothetical) hard evidence.
>>
>>Nobody said they would do that. Not one.
>
> I counted only those who said they would investigate and require
> repeatability. Do you want me to make up the statistics by guessing
> at what was not said?
No. I don't. Which is precisely what you did. You didn't ask what people
would do. You asked what they would conclude given the observations that
you specified. Your "statistics" have nothing to do with that.
>>>>Furthermore, miraculous causes are not accessible to investigation. Science
>>>>can fail to arrive at a natural explanation. It cannot produce a
>>>>supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are outside of science.
>>>
>>> supernatural or miraculous is, imo, just a label for laws and
>>> interaction of laws that we don't yet understand.
>>
>>No. They are not.
>
> Yes. They are. (Where has that gotten us?)
You are still projecting: imagining that the kind of core bias that you
have must be universal. It's not.
Mark
Shey
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 02:39:51 GMT, Richard Clayton
>
For the purposes of this discussion, I would term "magic" as
"supernatural forces which are inscrutable to science but which can
nonetheless be invoked reliably and predictably by one skilled in
their use."
I didn't say it doesn't exist; I said I've seen no evidence that it
exists. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. I have yet to
see evidence of anything like that, and without any evidence I do not
believe in such things. It's possible that magic DOES exist, and I
just haven't seen it; but it seems a stretch, because a person who
could reliably use magic would have enormous incentive to take
advantage of it in a way that would draw public attention. For
example, a person who could heal through magic (including faith
healing, psychic surgery, internal alchemy, or rasing the dead with a
good stern talking-to) could rapidly win fame, wealth, and power
beyond his most avaricious dreams. Even for lesser "magics" like
telekinesis or clairvoyance, one could easily collect $1,000,000 from
the Amazing Randi; why doesn't some low-rent conjuror show up, bend a
few spoons for Randi, and walk away with a cool million in his pocket?
(Why doesn't anybody even ATTEMPT the challenge?)
It's always possible that there's something I simply don't know. Maybe
magic is real, but nobody's figured out how to use it yet. Maybe the
presence of skeptics creates negative psychic feedback that prevents
the magic from working. (Of course, this latter sounds, to me, more
like the weak excuse of a fraud who has been exposed.) But I am an
analytical person by nature; while I cannot categorically state that
NOTHING one could call "magic" exists, I can state that I have seen no
evidence for such things-- and so I don't believe in it.
Bobby Bryant
You don't know the author of _any_ old book. What makes you think one
is more reliable than the other?
Von R. Smith
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 03:31:14 GMT, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
Let's put this back into context. In the OP in this thread, you made
the following statement:
[quote]Almost half of the posters to the threads have core
beliefs that will prevent them from investigating any type of hard
evidence that appears to undermine their beliefs.[/quote]
What Bobby's question was meant to establish is whether you consider
"some old book" to be such "hard evidence", and you have basically
responded that you do not consider it to be such by default.
I think you can see where the discussion is likely to lead from
there: What if anything makes the Gospels objectively better evidence
than "some old book?"
Zoe
>On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:08:02 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> enriched this
>group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:11 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>snip>
>>
>>zoe wrote:
>>
>>>>>>the rules of reality are man-made.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
>>>>>different?
>>>>
>>>>man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
>>>>laws of nature.
>>>
>>>No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
>>
>>okay, I'll be more precise. Man described his understanding of the
>>behaviors of nature and called them laws or rules of reality.
>
>Mankind searches for the laws of nature. Those laws are universal and
>define reality for both us and any alien race out there.
are we qualified to speak for alien races out there?
>>>
>>>> In an alien world, the aliens would make up the rules
>>>>of reality to describe their understanding of the laws of their world.
>>>
>>>No, they need to make nothing up.
>>
>>I didn't mean to use "make up" in the sense of fabrication.
>
>Then why use the term?
that is why I have changed it, thanks to your prompting.
>
>> Allow me
>>to use better words. Aliens would describe their reality with words
>>that reflected their best understanding of the behaviors of their
>>reality.
>
>But the reality, the laws of nature, are universal.
are you speaking for an alien world?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as further understanding
>>>>>>of the universe increases, the rules of reality change.
>>>>>
>>>>>More often than not we just understand the subtleties better.
>>>>
>>>>true, in many instances.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once upon a
>>>>>>time, the rules of reality said that it was impossible for people to
>>>>>>talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is still true.
>>>>
>>>>?? Is it impossible today to talk to each other from opposite sides
>>>>of the globe?
>>>
>>>Yes. Sound waves do not travel that far.
>>>
>>>We can, using modern technology, communicate with each other from the
>>>far reaches of our planet (and beyond) but that is NOT the same thing.
>>
>>I did not say sound waves. I said "talk."
>
>Yes, something which requires close proximity.
meaning, that as long as two people are on opposite sides of the
world, they cannot talk?
>
>> You have just described
>>the means by which this talk can occur. Thank you.
>>
>>Back to the point: There was a time when being able to talk (via the
>>means you have described) to someone on the other side of the globe
>>would have been considered miraculous and therefore, impossible.
>
>To some people it still is.
apparently, you must be one of them. You sure are fighting hard for
that position.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The rules of
>>>>>>reality once said that the sun went around the earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that was the stupidity of some men.
>>>>
>>>>it is our "stupidity" (I prefer "lack of knowledge")
>>>
>>>No, the knowledge that the earth went round the sun seems to be very
>>>old, it is just that the Judeo-christian religion stupidly rejected it
>>>for so long.
>>
>>and while "the Judeo-Christian religion stupidly rejected it," where
>>were the other scientists that recognized this stupidity during this
>>time? One finally spoke out. He was considered ignorant, stupid and
>>unscientific by the majority of then scientists.
>
>They were not real scientists.
they studied the real world and interpreted it through their core
beliefs. That is what real scientists do, you know.
>
>> Could history repeat
>>itself, this time with a different group of people and a different
>>issue?
>
>Nope. Modern science does not ignore evidence just because religion
>say they should.
yet modern scientists are well able to ignore evidence, just because
mainstream non-religion says they should. Human nature hasn't
changed.
>>>
>>>> that causes us to
>>>>fall short of describing reality fully. We make up rules of reality
>>>>as we understand reality, but those rules can change with an increase
>>>>in knowledge.
>>>
>>>Nononono! Religion makes up things - it is one of the reasons religion
>>>will always fail in the end.
>>
>>I see the words "make up" has quite diverted your attention. If you
>>were to replace "make up" with "describe", would you be able to agree
>>with the main point?
>
>You used the words "make up", not me.
and I changed it to comply with your standards. Now can you answer
the question with the new term "describe"?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What about the
>>>>>>rules of reality that said that it would be impossible for a hunk of
>>>>>>metal to defy gravity and fly?
>>>>>
>>>>>Those are still true.
>>>>
>>>>you are losing me, Old One. What is true? That it is impossible for
>>>>a hunk of metal to overcome (if you don't like "defy) gravity, and
>>>>fly?
>>>
>>>Yes. Exactly.
>>
>>okay, tell me what is going on then with rockets and airplanes if you
>>insist that it is impossible for a hunk of metal to overcome gravity
>>and fly.
>
>They do not overcome gravity.
what word would you use for what happens when a plane stays afloat
instead of being pulled to the earth by gravity?
> And they are far from being "hunks of
>metal".
okay, rockets and airplanes. They do contain a lot of metal.
Zoe
>On May 28, 10:13 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 02:39:51 GMT, Richard Clayton
>>
>> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Zoe wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:25:42 GMT, Richard Clayton
>> >> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> snip>
>> >>> What if, after the show, the illusionist insisted that what he did
>> >>> really WAS magic? Would you simply take his word for it? Or would you
>> >>> apply a healthy dose of skepticism?
>>
>> >> what is your understanding of real magic?
>>
>> > What do you mean by "understanding"? I have seen no evidence that
>> >anything I could term "magic" exists.
>>
>> I want to know what you understand of the thing that you have termed
>> "magic" and of which you see no evidence of its existence. To say
>> something does not exist, you must have some idea of what that
>> something is purported to be. So what is your understanding of "real
>> magic" that enables you to say that it does not exist?
>
>For the purposes of this discussion, I would term "magic" as
>"supernatural forces which are inscrutable to science but which can
>nonetheless be invoked reliably and predictably by one skilled in
>their use."
okay, so with your definition, I'll rephrase your question as: "What
if, after the show, the illusionist insisted that what he did really
WAS (supernatural forces)?"
Answer: I would tend to believe him if I determined that his
accomplishments were outside the ability of tricks/illusions.
See, my core beliefs make it easy for me to accept that kind of answer
because I do believe in intelligences outside of nature, and that
includes human intelligence. In order to test my core belief, you
would need to use a different hypothetical like the one I gave Joe
Cummings:
Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
change morphologically. At the end of several years, I find that
while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
systems, others are more plant-like.
If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
to change my core beliefs.
>
>I didn't say it doesn't exist; I said I've seen no evidence that it
>exists. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. I have yet to
>see evidence of anything like that, and without any evidence I do not
>believe in such things. It's possible that magic DOES exist, and I
>just haven't seen it; but it seems a stretch, because a person who
>could reliably use magic would have enormous incentive to take
>advantage of it in a way that would draw public attention. For
>example, a person who could heal through magic (including faith
>healing, psychic surgery, internal alchemy, or rasing the dead with a
>good stern talking-to) could rapidly win fame, wealth, and power
>beyond his most avaricious dreams. Even for lesser "magics" like
>telekinesis or clairvoyance, one could easily collect $1,000,000 from
>the Amazing Randi; why doesn't some low-rent conjuror show up, bend a
>few spoons for Randi, and walk away with a cool million in his pocket?
>(Why doesn't anybody even ATTEMPT the challenge?)
>
>It's always possible that there's something I simply don't know. Maybe
>magic is real, but nobody's figured out how to use it yet. Maybe the
>presence of skeptics creates negative psychic feedback that prevents
>the magic from working. (Of course, this latter sounds, to me, more
>like the weak excuse of a fraud who has been exposed.) But I am an
>analytical person by nature; while I cannot categorically state that
>NOTHING one could call "magic" exists, I can state that I have seen no
>evidence for such things-- and so I don't believe in it.
but hypothetically speaking, if you observed something like the
resurrected man who had previously been cut open and undeniably dead,
and this resurrection was not done for display or fame or money --
after all you were the only person present besides the medical
examiner -- would you consider this evidence for a supernatural force,
or would you prefer to doubt your senses, even though they have always
been reliable in the past, and even though you've had nothing to
drink, no drugs, no medications?
Zoe
wrote:
well, this is a whole new track, but I'll answer.
The Gospels recount fulfilment of prophecies made hundreds of years
before their time. For instance, the exact date and manner of
Christ's birth, life, and death was fulfilled. There apparently was
a study conducted by a Dr. Peter Stoner, former chairman of the
department of mathematics, astronomy and engineering, at Pasadena
College in California, who worked with 600 students for several years,
applying the principle of probability to the prophecies of the
Messiah's coming. They chose just eight out of some 125 prophecies
about the coming Messiah, and finally decided that the chances of all
eight being fulfilled in one man in a lifetime was 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And that was just
eight out of the 125 prophecies that were fulfilled.
But don't take my word for it. I'm sure you mathematicians can
calculate the statistics for that yourselves.
I would recommend that, unless you want to say that writers in New
Testament times made up the Old Testament predictions, you consider a
chapter like Psalms 22, in which the crucifixion was described in very
plain words, and see if you don't think it was truly prophetic.
There were also prophecies back when Babylon was a world power that
were fulfilled as to the rise and fall of empires after Babylon.
Moreover, the person who would capture Babylon and establish the
Medo-Persian empire, was named before his birth -- Cyrus.
Now, you can either resort to conspiracy theories, or you can consider
the weight of evidence from 66 books, written at widely different
times over 1500 years, by about 40 different writers of varying
professions, living on three continents, and speaking three different
languages.
For myself, I have considered the weight of this type of evidence,
along with other evidence, and accepted it.
Greg G.
> On 27 May 2007 13:08:25 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
Your investigations show that he is capable of mind control and
bragged of deceiving other people who doubted him. Would you trust him
knowing that positive findings may well be his control over your
investigation?
What if the super abundance in life promised to others had required
them to risk their lives attacking a city and killing every man,
woman, and child who lived there, plus all their livestock? What if
your investigation showed that his promises could be revoked if you
made the mistake of not killing all the beef on the hoof?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Your core is not
> >> >without bias.
>
> >> actually, this hypothetical does not test my core. My answer to Joe
> >> Cummings' thread on "Help for Zoe" contains the type of hypothetical
> >> that I think would test my core beliefs. Here it is again.
>
> >> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> >> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> >> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> >> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
> >> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> >> change morphologically. At the end of several years, while some
> >> bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> >> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> >> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> >> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> >> to change my core beliefs.-
>
> >That doesn't test your core bias, that changes your core bias.
>
> in order to change my core belief or bias, I would first have to have
> that belief tested. If the belief failed the test, then I'd better
> change.
>
> So what do you think about the hypothetical of the bacteria, anyway.
> Is this a reality in your world, or just an unsupported hypothetical
--
Greg G.
Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted
task.
--William James
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
yes, the immediate gut reaction. I could be wrong, but I figured that
what would follow from the initial conclusion was already evidenced by
the kinds of responses. For some, the immediate reaction was, "repeat
that." For others, it was "trick, trick," or "I must be insane."
Which response do you think would prompt further investigation?
raven1
>On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:00:28 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:08:02 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> enriched this
>>group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:11 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip>
>>>
>>>zoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>the rules of reality are man-made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
>>>>>>different?
>>>>>
>>>>>man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
>>>>>laws of nature.
>>>>
>>>>No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
>>>
>>>okay, I'll be more precise. Man described his understanding of the
>>>behaviors of nature and called them laws or rules of reality.
>>
>>Mankind searches for the laws of nature. Those laws are universal and
>>define reality for both us and any alien race out there.
>
>are we qualified to speak for alien races out there?
So are you saying that for alien races, f need not equal m*a? Or that
E=mc^2 may not be accurate? A very curious position to take; why might
you think something like that? Or am I mistaking what you're saying?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
raven1
How would you determine that?
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:00:28 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:08:02 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> enriched this
>>group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:11 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip>
>>>
>>>zoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>the rules of reality are man-made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, do you think the rules of reality on an alien world would be
>>>>>>different?
>>>>>
>>>>>man made up the rules of reality to describe his understanding of the
>>>>>laws of nature.
>>>>
>>>>No, nothing made up at all. Religion make thing us.
>>>
>>>okay, I'll be more precise. Man described his understanding of the
>>>behaviors of nature and called them laws or rules of reality.
>>
>>Mankind searches for the laws of nature. Those laws are universal and
>>define reality for both us and any alien race out there.
>
>are we qualified to speak for alien races out there?
In the sense of what is reality - yes.
[snip the rest of her rubbish]
--
Bob.
wf...@comcast.net
>
>The Gospels recount fulfilment of prophecies made hundreds of years
>before their time. For instance, the exact date and manner of
>Christ's birth, life, and death was fulfilled
it would have been better if the prophecies hadn't been public record.
anybody can say anything about a 'fulfilled prophecy'. we have no idea
if they were fulfilled. we just know that someone said they were
big, big difference.
>
>Now, you can either resort to conspiracy theories, or you can consider
>the weight of evidence from 66 books, written at widely different
>times over 1500 years, by about 40 different writers of varying
>professions, living on three continents, and speaking three different
>languages.
>
>For myself, I have considered the weight of this type of evidence,
>along with other evidence, and accepted it.
i suggest you read a good book on the history of the NT...start with
bart ehrman's 'lost christianities'....
there you'll see how the NT was changed and modified over a period of
about 150 years to address arguments that were raging during the early
christian era. it's not as simple as you think it is.
jo...@fleming-nospam.com
Any of 'em might. That's why your conclusions are invalid. You asked
the wrong question. Admittedly, it's difficult to ask the right
question.
--
Jon Fleming
Replae nospam with group to email
Von R. Smith
> On 28 May 2007 10:24:40 -0700, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com>
That's quite a trick, since we don't know the exact date of Jesus'
birth or death.
.
At any rate, you seem to have forgotten that one of the points at
issue is whether we should believe that the remarkable events
described in the Gospels ever actually happened. Citing those alleged
events and pointing out that they were prophecy fulfillments isn't
evidence for anything other than the authors' agenda.
The movie "The Seventh Sign" describes prophecy fulfillments, too.
All that proves is that its writers were familiar with the prophecies
and wished to depict fulfillments of them.
> There apparently was
> a study conducted by a Dr. Peter Stoner, former chairman of the
> department of mathematics, astronomy and engineering, at Pasadena
> College in California, who worked with 600 students for several years,
> applying the principle of probability to the prophecies of the
> Messiah's coming. They chose just eight out of some 125 prophecies
> about the coming Messiah, and finally decided that the chances of all
> eight being fulfilled in one man in a lifetime was 1 in
> 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And that was just
> eight out of the 125 prophecies that were fulfilled.
Did they also calculate the odds that it never happened, and that the
evangelists merely claimed that it did and embellished their stories
to bolster that claim?
>
> But don't take my word for it. I'm sure you mathematicians can
> calculate the statistics for that yourselves.
>
> I would recommend that, unless you want to say that writers in New
> Testament times made up the Old Testament predictions, you consider a
> chapter like Psalms 22, in which the crucifixion was described in very
> plain words, and see if you don't think it was truly prophetic.
Did you consider the possibility that Matthew knew Psalms 22 and might
use it as a trope to describe the events in question? AFAIK, the
Psalms aren't normally considered prophecies.
snip more evidence of Zoe's gullibility and little else.
Richard Clayton
DOH! Accidentally posted from my girlfriend's account while using
Google Groups. Any stupidity in the above post is my fault, not hers.
Richard Clayton
Whereas I'd be inclined to consider him simply protective of his
secrets, as stage magicians often are.
How can you determine what's "outside the ability" of tricks and
illusions? I've seen a woman sawn in half, fires created with "pure
psychic energy," and teleportation; how can you tell which are really
magic and which are sleight of hand?
As a matter of fact, I'm an amateur magician myself and I can pull some
clever little tricks that look convincing-- but I know for a fact
they're just illusion. I also do a damned good "cold reading" (for
psychometry and cartomancy); so good that a few people have told me that
I really do have "the gift" even if I don't believe it myself. But it's
a fraud, and I KNOW it's a fraud, because I know exactly how I made it
look like it wasn't a fraud.
> See, my core beliefs make it easy for me to accept that kind of answer
> because I do believe in intelligences outside of nature, and that
> includes human intelligence.
Where did "intelligences" come into this? Intelligence by itself
doesn't do anything.
> In order to test my core belief, you
> would need to use a different hypothetical like the one I gave Joe
> Cummings:
>
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, I find that
> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.
But what you describe isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory; you're
describing a rate of change far beyond anything any biologist imagines.
An experiment like that would not support modern science's understanding
of biology, it would mean we're dreadfully wrong about something.
Why not check out one of the experiments that scientists DO use to test
the theory of evolution?
See, that's the first problem. Scientific observations have to be
testable and repeatable; the whole system is designed to minimize the
possibility for error in observation (or deliberate fraud).
> -- would you consider this evidence for a supernatural force,
> or would you prefer to doubt your senses, even though they have always
> been reliable in the past and even though you've had nothing to
> drink, no drugs, no medications?
But my senses AREN'T reliable. I see in only one direction, in a very
narrow spectrum of radiation, and I can only focus on one thing at a
time. Worse than that, my brain itself can be fooled; my eyes may not
lie, but my brain may misunderstand what it sees (or thinks it sees).
Worst of all, my perceptions are *predictable* to others-- they know
that if I see an object at point A, then at point C, my brain will
insist it passed through point B in the process, and they can take
advantage of it.
Stage magicians can make a living *because* our senses are not
reliable. We imagine we see the whole picture when we don't; we imagine
our perceptions infallible when they aren't; we imagine our memory whole
and accurate when it's full of gaps and wishful thinking.
So no, I wouldn't consider a single incident to be evidence for a
supernatural force, because it could easily be a fake.
The real question is this: Why are you so ready to credit somebody
else's "magic" when you know how easy it is to fool people into THINKING
something is magic, absent careful controls and repeatable observations?
R. Baldwin
Either might. It depends on the inclinations of the person. Everyone is
curious, but also constrained for time and limited in skills. I think most
people would agree a situation like the one described would bear
investiagion. Whether an observer decides to personally investigate would
depend on how important he think it is, whether he thinks his investigative
talents are up to the task, whether someone else he trusts is already
investigating it, whether he is on their way to an important engagement,
whether he has been ill recently, and a host of other concerns.
Pfusand
> On 27 May 2007 12:46:47 -0700,Pfusand<a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
> >On May 25, 9:55 pm, muz...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On 24 May 2007 18:58:50 -0700,Pfusand<a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 24, 8:56 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >> If I remember right, there were a lot of
> >> demands from you for apologies.
>
> >That's right. You told lies about me.
>
> Pfu, Pfu, Pfu, there are others in the world besides you. Come back
> to reality. If you choose to insert yourself into a post that has not
> once used your name, and then get insulted by it....well, I think you
> must live a very difficult life in which everyone is insulting you on
> a minute-by-minute basis.
Permit me to quote from the string in question:
"> >Oh, Zoe, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rigor will
have
> >passed off about a day after death.
> oh, Pfusand, you are easily derailed by trifling details."
Now, what was that about "a post that has not once used your name"?
(snip)
> >>Pfusand, if I have harmed you in any way, I apologize. It was not my
> >> intent.
>
> >That is not an apology. The "if I have..." construct turns it into a
> >weasely little dodge. For you to produce an apology, you will have to
> >identify what made your comments offensive (i.e., your exact lies),
> >and respond to those in particular, either by correction or by
> >mitigation.
>
> okay, dear one, please produce the offensive, lying comments that I
> have directed personally at you, and I will weigh them carefully as to
> their need for an apology.
Two things. First, it would appear that you are now claiming that you
glibly apologized for something without ever believing that you had
done anything period, let alone anything that you had to apologize
for. Second, I did flag each comment as to its offensiveness, so I
have already done the work that you insist I should do for you over
again.
I won't.
If you are too lazy and morally lacking to do the right thing, you
will have bestowed upon you the adjectives which you have earned.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Bobby Bryant
Zoe <muz...@aol.com> writes:
> The Gospels recount fulfilment of prophecies made hundreds of years
> before their time.
The "prophecies" recounted in the Gospels are nothing but quote-mining
of the Jewish scriptures.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <vmdm53d9c8bub42pp...@4ax.com>,
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> The Gospels recount fulfilment of prophecies made hundreds of years
>> before their time.
>
>The "prophecies" recounted in the Gospels are nothing but quote-mining
>of the Jewish scriptures.
And in the case of Matthew in particular, prophecies bend almost
beyond breaking point to make them fit.
--
Bob.
Zoe
Raven, I'm saying that we have not lived in the alien's world so we
don't know what might be different there. Therefore, it would behoove
Old One to be more cautious in his assertions about places where he
has not lived. Earthnocentrism is as bad as ethnocentrism.
Zoe
if you are referring back to the original hypothetical, that of
determining if the dead person was truly dead, then it would be
through investigation. I would take whatever steps are necessary to
determine authenticity of death, such as checking the death
certificate; observation at close range that the body is indeed cold
and dead; observation at close range of the slicing open of the body.
No magician has been known to resurrect a dead body, so I can no
longer call this an illusion. Repeatability would be helpful, but
even this one single event is sufficient to make me rethink what we
know of our present laws.
Zoe
raising a certifiably dead person back to life is outside the ability
of tricks and illusions. The key word here is "certifiably dead."
>I've seen a woman sawn in half, fires created with "pure
>psychic energy," and teleportation; how can you tell which are really
>magic and which are sleight of hand?
I can't answer that right now because I haven't paid much attention to
magic shows. But regardless, the hypothetical I gave is one that no
magic show is known to perform. Certifiably dead people do not come
back to life in magic shows.
>
> As a matter of fact, I'm an amateur magician myself and I can pull some
>clever little tricks that look convincing-- but I know for a fact
>they're just illusion. I also do a damned good "cold reading" (for
>psychometry and cartomancy); so good that a few people have told me that
>I really do have "the gift" even if I don't believe it myself. But it's
>a fraud, and I KNOW it's a fraud, because I know exactly how I made it
>look like it wasn't a fraud.
have you tried your hand at resurrecting a certifiably dead person?
That's what the hypothetical is about, not magic tricks.
>
>> See, my core beliefs make it easy for me to accept that kind of answer
>> because I do believe in intelligences outside of nature, and that
>> includes human intelligence.
>
> Where did "intelligences" come into this? Intelligence by itself
>doesn't do anything.
intelligent minds, then.
>
>> In order to test my core belief, you
>> would need to use a different hypothetical like the one I gave Joe
>> Cummings:
>>
>> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
>> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
>> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
>> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
>> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
>> change morphologically. At the end of several years, I find that
>> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
>> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
>> systems, others are more plant-like.
>>
>> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
>> to change my core beliefs.
>
> But what you describe isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory; you're
>describing a rate of change far beyond anything any biologist imagines.
I don't think so. If a bacterium splits every 20 minutes, you will
have trillions of bacteria in a few hours that would begin to provide
your evolutionary time line in microcosm, given a few months or years.
On that scale, you should see the kind of evolutionary changes that
are assumed to have happened in longer-lived species.
>An experiment like that would not support modern science's understanding
>of biology, it would mean we're dreadfully wrong about something.
>Why not check out one of the experiments that scientists DO use to test
>the theory of evolution?
you mean, you don't know any offhand, yourself? I would think this
type of thing would be at the fingertips of evolutionists on this
forum who are dedicated to demonstrating their points.
You're not talking about the fruit-fly experiment, are you? The fruit
fly has a fast gestation period, 12 days, and has been used to try to
demonstrate how mutations can change a species. Yet what they have
ended up with so far are fruit flies with abnormalities, not a species
that no longer is recognized as a fruit fly.
What else have you got? Help me out.
wait a minute. If scientific observations have to be testable and
repeatable, then are you saying that the theory of abiogenesis is
unscientific? That the theory of the split of chimp and human from a
last common ancestor is unscientific? That the theory that a series
of rare beneficial mutations got selected that evolved a dinosaur into
a bird, is unscientific? None of those are testable and repeatable,
you know.l
>
>> -- would you consider this evidence for a supernatural force,
>> or would you prefer to doubt your senses, even though they have always
>> been reliable in the past and even though you've had nothing to
>> drink, no drugs, no medications?
>
> But my senses AREN'T reliable. I see in only one direction, in a very
>narrow spectrum of radiation, and I can only focus on one thing at a
>time. Worse than that, my brain itself can be fooled; my eyes may not
>lie, but my brain may misunderstand what it sees (or thinks it sees).
>Worst of all, my perceptions are *predictable* to others-- they know
>that if I see an object at point A, then at point C, my brain will
>insist it passed through point B in the process, and they can take
>advantage of it.
okay, then I suppose we can count you out as a scientist that can be
relied upon for your observations. You seem to have a lot of problems
with your unreliable senses and easily fooled brain. How can I trust
your positions about the evidence for evolution based on the admitted
unreliability of your brain?
> Stage magicians can make a living *because* our senses are not
>reliable. We imagine we see the whole picture when we don't; we imagine
>our perceptions infallible when they aren't; we imagine our memory whole
>and accurate when it's full of gaps and wishful thinking.
what does your tendency to fill in gaps do to your interpretation of
scientific evidence?
> So no, I wouldn't consider a single incident to be evidence for a
>supernatural force, because it could easily be a fake.
the question is, what would you do once you have decided that this
incident was not, after all, a fake? Move on or check it out further?
>
> The real question is this: Why are you so ready to credit somebody
>else's "magic" when you know how easy it is to fool people into THINKING
>something is magic, absent careful controls and repeatable observations?
this hypothetical is not absent careful controls and repeatable
observations. It allowed for that.