|
|
|
|
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 151 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:33:09 PM |
...and what does the math say? I see no logic ~ I see no fallacy ~ I see no conclusion.
Critical thinking, reasoning, fallacy, etc.
In ordinary usage, the word “argument" is often used to refer to a heated dispute between two or more parties. But in logic and critical thinking, the term has a different meaning. Here, an argument is taken to be a list of statements, one of which is the CONCLUSION and the others are the PREMISES or ASSUMPTIONS of the argument. To give an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion. The ability to construct, identify and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical thinking.
FALLACIES are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature. If I counted twenty people in the room when there were in fact twenty-one, then I made a factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are round squares, I believe something that is inconsistent. This is a mistake of reasoning, and a fallacy, since I should not have believed something inconsistent if my reasoning is good.
~ A Mini Guide to Critical Thinking, Joe Lau; Department of Philosophy /The University of Hong Kong
Explain the math to me on the sharing dreams one...
Mathematically this is known as a "spurious relationship".
The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:
A causes B,
B causes A,
OR
C causes both A and B.
The last is a spurious correlation. It is therefore often said that "Correlation does not imply causation". | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:55:06 PM |
The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:
A causes B,
B causes A,
OR
C causes both A and B.
The last is a spurious correlation. It is therefore often said that "Correlation does not imply causation".
I don't really understand what you are saying at all...... could you explain what you mean in a simpler way?
Are you just saying that it just happened and there is nothing to it? I mean, there are a lot of variables here that makes it a freaky coincidence. He didn't just tell me what color my shirt was in the dream but something that includes a lot of specifics which makes it difficult for me to accept linking it to simple coincidence... Of course we were spending a lot of time together so it goes to reason that we shared a lot of the same thoughts...
I was also thinking of women living together who end up sharing similar menstrual cycles. Doesn't that somehow demonstrate a spiritual connection expressed in the physical? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 153 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/26/2009 10:32:28 PM |
could you explain what you mean in a simpler way?
Two things eerily similar happening at the same time does not imply a supernatural explanation
Of course we were spending a lot of time together so it goes to reason that we shared a lot of the same thoughts...
Great example of a well-reasoned conclusion 
I was also thinking of women living together who end up sharing similar menstrual cycles. Doesn't that somehow demonstrate a spiritual connection expressed in the physical?
Both the cause and effect are thought to be hormonal - physical. Another contention is that the "McClintock effect" (as it's known) is mostly bad data:
"when the studies are corrected for such errors, the evidence for menstrual synchrony disappears."
~ Wilson HC (1992). "A critical review of menstrual synchrony research". Psychoneuroendocrinology | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 1:54:47 AM |
"Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain" Dr. John Henley, neurologist; Mayo Clinic
I'd almost be gung ho to do more searching on this...of course you use 100% of your brain over the course of a day...but minus the part that regulates our biorhythms and the part that we slide into while we sleep....
Those functions have absolutely nothing to do with critical thinking
I consider myself a skeptic who's enthusiastic about entertaining the possibilities...I've been offered evidence...granted it's very subjective evidence...but reality is subjective...If I read or hear about an experience from someone who has nothing to sell me...why would I just disregard it as nonsense? And I'm talking about spiritual experiences that go far beyond weird dreams that might just be coincidences. I take everything with a grain of salt...but to doubt just because logic and critical thinking can't provide evidence? That's just sticking to one train of thought...
I've had discussions with scientific minds that chose to ignore small details of a story to come to the most simple logical conclusion...we all cater to our own trains of thought....REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 155 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 2:33:11 AM | I'd almost be gung ho to do more searching on this...of course you use 100% of your brain over the course of a day...but minus the part that regulates our biorhythms and the part that we slide into while we sleep....
Those functions have absolutely nothing to do with critical thinking
I never said it did, those comments were directed at the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth, (which even if it was true, would not constitute any kind of proof of ESP).
but to doubt just because logic and critical thinking can't provide evidence? That's just sticking to one train of thought...
Logic and critical thinking don't "provide" evidence, these are tools for considering it. If you are advocating for their opposites to be considered, how is this "evidence"?
I've had discussions with scientific minds that chose to ignore small details of a story to come to the most simple logical conclusion...
Scientists are not the best equipped to judge whether ESP is real, they've been fooled by well played cons a few times. Science has the disadvantage of an expectation of honesty, ...that's an unfortunate bias. However, scientists have been trying to prove the existence of psi for over 150 years. While there has been no progress in parapsychology, all the other sciences have progressed exponentially since 1850.
Skeptics don't have this bias, they're neutral - and their testing methods are transparent and simple. The point being, if you or others have a dispute with a particular testing protocol, ...make an example of it - pick it apart. This is not the same as just fabricating one from a preconceived impression, ...the idea of "they can't test it because", ...pick an actual one and critique it.
I consider myself a skeptic who's enthusiastic about entertaining the possibilities...
The latter kinda' contradicts the former, unless you subscribe to the Pyrrhonistic view of skepicism (in which case ~ never mind).
Carl Sagan's essay on the Baloney Detection Kit in The Demon-Haunted World says it best:
~ Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
~ Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
~ Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
~ Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
~ Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
~ Quantify, wherever possible.
~ If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
~ "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
~ Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is -testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
~ Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
- Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
If you haven't read Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World", you should, it's a very good read. | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 3:09:30 AM | Many issues!
How can it be claimed that science has progressed exponetially? I am sorry but this statement means nothing to me (espicially as scientists haven't discovered a good cure for baldness yet!)
The 10% of the brain argument. I agree this is misleading. However no one can claim full power over their consciousness. Ear worms for example. Is brain power a matter of absolutes or degree? Compare a Professor of Logic with a paranoid schizophrenic.
Dancecards anecdote is particullarly interesting. Not least because it involves racing. However the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, does not apply in my opinion.The previous losses have no bearing. The event would have been of significance if it was the only bet of the day placed by Dancecard. Would the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy still apply if it was the placing of the bet that caused the horse to win.
In my opinion supernatural powers do not have to manifest themselves in a supernatural way. Synchronicity again. | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 4:54:44 AM | Great read, interesting thoughts.
as for myself ~ I'm welling to say, "I just don't know" and be happy with that.
I would like to think that I am a critical thinker, it's good to have piers that help me stay anchored. I enjoy questioning "everything" and everyone and sharing thoughts and stories.
Anything is confusing when you are missing facts.
As it is said , "Welcome and embrace confusion for t is a precursor to knowledge.
All the pieces don't have to neatly fit until I'm ready to understand it.
What I have always looked for is some consistancy ~ that will be "my" proof" and I need no other.
Dance | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 6:49:45 AM | I do ~ want to believe we are addressed. ~ we are capable of having "premonitions"
sometimes it comes as a "piffany" a connect the dots moment. ~ But it's not a message for everyone, it's for "you" and you only. ~ You might share it, ~ but the chances are good you will be scoffed at. ~ And that's okay ~ for there is nothing to prove and no need for approval.
You got to get "ego"out of it. ~ Ego is a blocker , Ego stunts spiritual growth. Ego comes from many places I suppose, but "self importance" being central. In the world of spirit all things are spirit and all things are equal. ~ It's kind of like being a straight in a gay bar ~ there's something missing! The male ego! ~ such a strange and unfamiliar place from the world I'm use too. The tension is gone!
on a side note; I address "feeling threatened" or "taking acception or being offended".
These feeling are the by-product of ego and inner weakness. ~ If you know who and what you are ~ what others think , say and do ~ matters little. ~ But if you doubt or question such things ~ what others say about you does affect you. I think of the story of Jesus appearing before Pontius Pilate (governor) of the Roman province of Judaea.
If there ever was a time to know "who" you are ~~ then was such a time. ~ Yes, I know it ended badly. ~ but ~ there is a lesson to be learned in the conversation both these men had that day. ~ If you find the time, read the conversation these two men had, bearing in mind Pilate was the most powerful man answering only to Claudia his wife and Ceaser, would not hesitate to hand you your head in a heartbeat and Jesus a homeless drifter with no visible means of support.
the twist to all of this is? ~~ what are you? and where is your true home. ~ If you answer those question correctly. ~ It all makes sense other wise ~ it's just another wild story.
Dance | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 10:31:55 AM |
If I read or hear about an experience from someone who has nothing to sell me...why would I just disregard it as nonsense?
They do have something to sell you though...a belief. Selling you on their belief gives their belief credibility in their mind. Religion operates like this.  | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 10:19:15 PM |
They do have something to sell you though...a belief. Selling you on their belief gives their belief credibility in their mind. Religion operates like this.
Religion has nothing to do with the topic...
If my buddy tells me he can see auras...he's not running on blind faith...that's his reality...I think it's cool...I feel no need to try and tear his reality down...he could very well have tapped into an ability that 99% of the population haven't developed....
Just because I can't see them doesn't mean they're not real...because apparently they are real for some people...
The mind of a schitzophrenic is an interesting point to bring up in this discussion...we recongnize that their mind is capable of creating halucinations that are very REAL for them...and we fully accept their completely subjective reality...if we didn't...that poor **stard that chopped off that kid's head on the bus would have been sent down to Texas and been given the injection... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 161 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 10:55:25 PM |
Religion has nothing to do with the topic...
Yes it does, in terms of credulity, "fallacy as proof" and conformation bias.
If my buddy tells me he can see auras...he's not running on blind faith...that's his reality...I think it's cool...I feel no need to try and tear his reality down...he could very well have tapped into an ability that 99% of the population haven't developed....
Just an example: This is another aspect of ESP that has a simple way to *test if it's actually happening.
Again consider:
Those who actually believe they have these abilities have all tested "no more accurate than random chance allows for", those who know they are frauds, "know" that the testers "know" perfectly well how they do it –and so come up with lame excuses to not take the challenge, many of them outright lies.
By the combined offers of skeptical organizations all over the world, it is possible to cash in no less than $2,326,500. Even if the so-called "psychic" claims they *don't want the money, ...they could use it to feed 90,000 starving people for a year. Why let them starve?
* if one needs to critique the testing protocols for detecting auras, google one and pick it apart, just claiming that it's "flawed" is baseless. Here's a few to start on.
"Recognition of auras has occasionally been scientifically tested. One test involved an aura reader standing on one side of a room with an opaque partition separating her from a number of slots which might contain either actual people or mannequins. The aura reader failed to identify the slots containing people, incorrectly stating that all contained people."
~ "auras". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
Here's another "fail".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU
As for natural explanations that don't violate the law of parsimony:
"Skeptics such as Robert Todd Carroll contend that auras may be seen for explainable reasons such as migraines or synesthesia"
~ http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll, entry on auras
"Some people see auras as the result of a migraine, epilepsy, a visual system disorder, or a brain disorder."
~ Deprez, L. et al.. "Familial occipitotemporal lobe epilepsy and migraine with visual aura
"Eye fatigue can also produce an aura, sometimes referred to as eye burn."
~ Hill, Donna L. et al.. "Most Cases Labeled as "Retinal Migraine" Are Not Migraine
we recongnize that their mind is capable of creating halucinations that are very REAL for them...and we fully accept their completely subjective reality.
And according to the DSM IV diagnostic criteria, we accept that their reality is a symptom of a mental illness, ...not a supernatural ability. | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/27/2009 11:58:04 PM |
If my buddy tells me he can see auras...he's not running on blind faith...that's his reality...I think it's cool...I feel no need to try and tear his reality down...he could very well have tapped into an ability that 99% of the population haven't developed....
I see 'auras' around things sometimes. I also see little mostly transparent worms and other shapes all the time that nobody else can see. I just don't jump to the conclusion that I'm seeing people's auras or that I'm seeing little worm aliens. I know there are rational explanations for everything, whether we are aware of them or not.
There goes one of the worm aliens across the computer monitor right now...little bugger. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 163 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 1:15:35 AM |
How can it be claimed that science has progressed exponetially?
See the original statement for context:
While there has been no progress in parapsychology, all the other sciences have progressed exponentially since 1850.
By any measure of "progress", compare the last 159 years to all of recorded history preceding it, especially in terms of tangible progress (the real byproducts of scientific research).
While you're at it compare all the other science's progress to that of "parapsychology", especially in terms of tangible progress, (the real byproducts of scientific research).
However no one can claim full power over their consciousness.
I wasn't aware anybody was.
Would the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy still apply if it was the placing of the bet that caused the horse to win.
You have two fallacies to deal with now.
In my opinion supernatural powers do not have to manifest themselves in a supernatural way.
Is this not a contradiction? | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 5:56:28 AM | There are several objections that can be put forward.
1.You have introduced a date. Is this a base year, a 'year zero'? If so then parapsychology might be awaiting a 'year zero' , one that hasn't occured yet. 159 years seems a long time as it is greater than human mortality. But it is a blink of the eye in terms of the history of the world.
2.I am awaiting hard scientific evidence of the subconscious, but thats not to say it doesn't exist.
3.As I explained in my previous post, I do not believe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy applies in Dancecards case. There certainly wouldn't be two fallacies; one would cancel the other out if one or other fallacy applied.
4. Supernatural powers do not necessarily have to manifest themselves in a supernatural way (but that is not to say that they never do). There is no contradiction. Supernatural powers can continually push the bounds of probability without violating physical laws. Synchronicity again.
There are many problems with trying to apply science to the supernatural. The Obsever Effect was introduced (thats not the right word I know!) by scientists without claims of circularity of argument. But if a believer in the supernatural was to make claims of the Observer Effect then no doubt it would be dismissed as a circular argument. Yet I believe it could be applicable. Supernatural powers for a variety of reasons might be resistant to 'laboratory' observation.
It is Western mentality yhat demands scientific proof of the supernatural, but it can be questioned why. Is it for proof or utility? Is a quasi Hegelian myth at play?
Catergorization of the supernatural changes across culture and time. To other cultures it is absurd to apply science to the supernatural. Indeed in Western Culture the term 'black arts' was used. Supernatural powers might be more analogous to art. Asking the Beatles or Michaelangelo to produce art under laboratory conditions might not be a very good idea.
Edit - With regard to your previous post concerning payment to psychic by scientists, why bring in emotional blackmail? Ask the scientists to give the money directly to the starving children! | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 6:44:30 AM | It's true that the mind plays tricks on us ~ often!
and you need not some "illness" for this to occur.
That, reality is perception ~ make any understanding of this
somewhat confusing. For example , a lie can be told often enough to become so,
even though it false. ~ For we plant a seed of reality into the mind. This can be applied on a massive scale.
~ oops , out of time.
Dance | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 166 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 7:12:12 AM | With regard to your previous post concerning payment to psychic by scientists, why bring in emotional blackmail?
It's a common response to so-called psychics when they are offered the money, the ones who know they're frauds, know that the skeptics will be able to test around the con, they make up unlikely excuses for not meeting the challenge, after claiming to only being in the game to "help people", Sylvia Browne for one.
- The tests are rigged (they are then offered to construct a test themselves)
- The money doesn't exist - debunked
- The money's "tainted" (Then give it to the poor after you collect it)
- They don't need it (Then give it to the poor after you collect it)
Ask the scientists to give the money directly to the starving children!
What scientists?
The Obsever Effect was introduced (thats not the right word I know!) by scientists without claims of circularity of argument. Untrue, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was thought to be ridiculous by many of his peers, Einstein included, hence the famous quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe"
Einstein was wrong, ...but it took testing the principle to prove it to him.
But if a believer in the supernatural was to make claims of the Observer Effect then no doubt it would be dismissed as a circular argument. Yet I believe it could be applicable.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not say "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events.
Supernatural powers for a variety of reasons might be resistant to 'laboratory' observation.
And my leprechaun boot buckle dust might only work if I don't think of polar bears...
Who bothers with "laboratory" observation anyway? Testing is most often a simple matter of either spotting the con and negating it or contrasting the claimed "power" with the range of random occurrence. No scientists needed until we need to look at causality, ...that follows proving mere existence of ESP - hasn't happened yet. (those poor starving people).
Supernatural powers can continually push the bounds of probability without violating physical laws. Synchronicity again.
I must accept a premise for which there is no proof, to continue past the first two words of the statement, yet more fallacy again. Conformation bias may be contagious amongst the credulous, this is not one of those instances. Littlewood's law to your Jungian ploy for the conclusion.
As I explained in my previous post, I do not believe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy applies in Dancecards case.
Right, because of, ..."if it was the placing of the bet that caused the horse to win"
There certainly wouldn't be two fallacies; one would cancel the other out if one or other fallacy applied.
Let's see, My leprechaun boot buckle dust causes global warming because ice cream has no teeth.
It's good to know that faulty reasoning can be fixed by applying faulty reasoning, ...sorry, no sale.
I am awaiting hard scientific evidence of the subconscious, but thats not to say it doesn't exist.
Can't prove a negative, and "subconscious" is a nebulous, non-scientific term, why would science care?
You have introduced a date. Is this a base year, a 'year zero'?
For parapsychology, a decade or two either way, it makes no difference 1850, 1870, 1880, no progress is still no progress.
But it is a blink of the eye in terms of the history of the world.
But, not in terms of the history of science, please, enough straw men, intellectual dishonesty gives me a purple aura, and grows teeth in the ice cream. | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 8:32:24 AM | "How can it be claimed that science has progressed exponetially?"
I suggest you study the scientific development of "Moore's Law" and you might see how it applies.
As to spirituality, "The Dancing Woo Li Masters" is a great book on this topic which does separate religion and spirituality.
I have had several spiritual experiences. I no longer speak from 'belief' or 'faith' but from 'experience.' If you haven't had one yet, then maybe someday you will. | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 9:25:45 AM | Late - I'm going to bow out at this point (but that's not conceeding defeat!). We'll carry on accusing each other of fallacious arguments and intellectual dishonesty at this rate. You believe my logic is faulty, I believe your logic is faulty. We'll both offer what we believe are facts to reinforce our cases. We could both pick and choose what to respond to from each others posts. We are never going to convince each other, but let us allow other posters to examine the cases we have made and decide for themselves. I certainly don't wish for any unpleasantness to ensue, as I respect alot of what you have said but I refute the charges of intellectual dishonesty and straw men.
At the end of the day, as another poster has mentioned, personal experience can change perspective, I've had an experience that defies explaination. In fact I have several POF messaging /profile viewing experiences that from my own circumstances I would desribe at the extreme as uncanny, but most certainly slightly odd coincidences! ( I am prepared to go into detail via personal message on this and other matters)
I have for the most part thoroughly enjoyed debating with you, in a battle of wits you are certainly fully armed, and I hope I have not been too unworthy an opponent on this subject. You stand by your postion and I'll stand by mine.I hope we have both given each other and other posters something to think about.
Regards
Finbarr | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 169 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 10:19:18 AM | I refute the charges of intellectual dishonesty and straw men.
Neither was expressed as an epithet or flame, just the definitions of those terms.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- I said, "all of recorded history preceding it, especially in terms of tangible progress, (the real byproducts of scientific research)." in regards to "science"
- You replied, "But it is a blink of the eye in terms of the history of the world."
Hence why I called, "straw man", as you aren't refuting what I said here, you're refuting something else.
I have for the most part thoroughly enjoyed debating with you, in a battle of wits you are certainly fully armed, and I hope I have not been too unworthy an opponent on this subject. You stand by your postion and I'll stand by mine.I hope we have both given each other and other posters something to think about.
Cheers dude, no animosity here.
I don't have to agree with somebody to learn something, this is the true reward of discussion/debate.
You believe my logic is faulty, I believe your logic is faulty.
With logical fallacy I actually do the math when I say "do the math"  I tend to spot them even when they aren't intended (usually they aren't, this doesn't negate them though).
Learning the 70 or so formal and informal logical fallacies came from my late-father many years ago. He was a well respected behavioral scientist who played around a lot in some very interesting areas of study (including some seminal work on "consciousness" and "perception" that's still thought to be quite radical). "Thinking" became one of his pet projects, I got to read a lot of gently used books on it when I was younger.
One of the best (and most fun) ways to learn how to spot logical fallacies (especially if you have a child to read to) is to read *Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", as all the character's dialog is expressed as various fallacies. This is how I taught them to my daughter, ...she doesn't lose many arguments, even as a 10 year old.
*The "pen name" for Charles Dodgson Mathematician/Logician
I've had an experience that defies explaination.
I think most of us have such experiences, but for me, "not knowing" doesn't automatically equate - supernatural | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 10:20:45 AM |
"subconscious" is a nebulous, non-scientific term, why would science care?
Ahhh just another one of life's little mysteries...why would it care? who knows...apparently it does...but only enough to test the odd self proclaimed professional with spiritual powers in order to reinforce it's doubt....
You know...in my experience...most people who are good at making money are dishonest....
No...science doesn't care...if it did...you'd think at the very least they would take a small sample of all sorts of people to test in order to come to their conclusions.... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 171 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 10:39:12 AM | most people who are good at making money are dishonest....
Ha ha! if there is any absolute truths, I bet this is one of them.
Even those who study the mysteries of the mind (the naturally occurring ones), don't like the term, "subconscious", it's often attributed to Freud, and he even disowned it. Many similar terms are deemed "archaic" today, and considering the strides made in mapping the brains functions made in just the last decade, it's no surprise.
in order to reinforce it's doubt....
Science does deal in falsifiability. Doubt is the best tool for progress here.
...but there has to be something to test.
This is one of the reasons these claims are best left to those who specialize in spotting "the con". | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 11:31:22 AM | "With logical fallacy I actually do the math when I say "do the math" I tend to spot them even when they aren't intended (usually they aren't, this doesn't negate them though).
Learning the 70 or so formal and informal logical fallacies came from my late-father many years ago. He was a well respected behavioral scientist who played around a lot in some very interesting areas of study (including some seminal work on "consciousness" and "perception" that's still thought to be quite radical). "Thinking" became one of his pet projects, I got to read a lot of gently used books on it when I was younger."
Careful now. Someone with only a 2.1 Honours Degree in Philosophy might mention the fallacy of arguing from authority!
 | |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 11:41:25 AM |
...she doesn't lose many arguments,
It's not about winning or losing for me...more important to discuss things fully and be able to see all aspects of the discussion....
Doubt is the best tool for progress here.
Doubt has to be balanced with a geniune curiosity...this is what I meant when I said I'm a skeptic who likes to entertain the possibilities...while I'm interested in spiritual concepts...I can never read or hear about something and hold it as a belief or a truth...
The genuine curiosity takes things a step further...if I'm curious enough to try and develop the ability to see auras...then I can either hold that as my truth or dismiss it depending on what the results are....
I like to live by the concept of there being no "truth" it helps me to remain open to all subjective realities... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 174 | |
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 11:41:47 AM | Someone with only a 2.1 Honours Degree in Philosophy might mention the fallacy of arguing from authority!
That last bit was less arguing and more one of those moments that I miss my dad, though if he was here he'd probably accuse me of not employing enough lateral thinking in my arguments, ...he was a big fan of Edward de Bono.
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Bono
See, I would love to be able to communicate with my dad, or my mom, I miss them both. I wish we could speak to the dead, ...but wanting, wishing and even love; isn't enough to convince me that I or anybody else can.
It's not about winning or losing for me...more important to discuss things fully and be able to see all aspects of the discussion....
It's not all about winning to my 10 y/o, trust me, she sees more than a lot of adults I know, it's just that when she spots BS, she calls it, and at this too she can hold her own with most adults. Aside from this she's just a normal 10 y/o girl.
Doubt has to be balanced with a geniune curiosity...
But in science, falsifiability is the key to progressing from curiosity, derivation, creativity, etc. It's a linear process, blame Bacon.
this is what I meant when I said I'm a skeptic who likes to entertain the possibilities...
I don't conflate skepticism with science in regards to purpose, they have different means and ends. The two aren't mutually inclusive, the former is probably a very important part of the latter, but the obverse isn't a necessity. But, in regards to this topic, I don't think it's ready for scientific inquiry yet, it may never be.
As far as skepticism is concerned, I prefer to have an open mind, and all that it entails.
| |
|
| What do you think of spiritual powers? Do they exist?
Posted: 8/28/2009 11:57:08 AM | Curiously, our local weekly just ran a cover story about a well-known skeptic who has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic powers. Hundreds have tried but no one has won the money yet.
Most recent: A woman who claims to have the ability, among other things, to read the faces of playing cards she can't see. They brought her before an audience. There were ten playing cards in envelopes, each with a differently numbered card, and a ten-sided die. She was asked to roll the die and whatever number came up, she would then find the envelope with the card that had that number on it. She was to roll the die three times to pick three different cards. The result? She didn't get a single one right. They opened all the envelopes to demonstrate that there were cards of every number from 1 - 10 (the ace being used as 1). Of course, the psychics always have their excuses. "The spirits did not choose to show themselves today."
I've met a number of people who have claimed to have the ability to divine things using pendulums, diving rods, etc. They were all so obviously bogus. Sure, there are lucky coincidences at times and I've had my own in life. But no, I don't believe anyone has any such powers. I think some people are good at paying attention to subtle cues and others are gullible and too willing to believe. They will point to science when they think it works in their favor but when it doesn't, they ignore it.
I can't believe people really believe this stuff but they do. People's understanding of science, their willingness to engage in critical thinking, and their willingness to pay attention to facts (as opposed to opinions or interpretations of the facts) is woefully poor.
I was also thinking of women living together who end up sharing similar menstrual cycles. Doesn't that somehow demonstrate a spiritual connection expressed in the physical?
No. It's the result of pheromes and this has been demonstrated in scientific experiments. The underarm sweat of women who seemed to be strong "controllers" was placed under the noses of women who seemed to be "followers" and the "followers" cycles started coinciding with the cycles of the "controllers" even though they didn't live together, work together, or even know each other. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
