Go to page:

Thoughts on the Spirits of Old

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

My reference to scientific theories is exactly as I suggested, as corroborative evidence for my argument. They do not stand in place of it.
Your answer is revealing. From what you say, the writers seem to have realised that there was a problem in postulating psionic ability and yet without large scale evidence of it and so created an ad hoc explanation to account for it. Perfectly legitimate as entertainment. Credible hypotheses should fit with all the known facts (most of? some 'facts' are erroneous) and provide a coherent explanation. One can of course produce one off scenarios that are plausible. Human culture is extremely complex and variable. Which is the problem. It seems reasonable to suppose, without some universally applicable factor, that for every culture that persecuted those with psychic ability there would be others that would nurture and revere them. Then, it is at least arguable that group selection would make those cultures with increasing psionic abilities more adaptive than those without.  
To be more precise you say that the premise is that 'use of the abilities harms the individual often to the point of death'. That needs unpacking. What actually causes this?

HHMCameron
BetaWolfinVA
Fire of Insight
United States 4awards
Joined 17th Oct 2014
Forum Posts: 315

The show is not clear what the mechanism is... but blood from the nose and ears argues that bad things are happening

The lead character is a 12-year old girl who's mother died in childbirth due to complications arising from stopping a missile aimed at the building she was in... as a demonstration of her abilities.

I believe that you would be familiar with the concept of lethal recessive traits.

If psionics were paired with lethal traits, then hosts surviving to have and raise children would contraindicate psionics having a large or even noticible affect on the world...

Factor in government trying to make use of these rare individuals and actively keeping the secret...

dartford
Paul S...
Tyrant of Words
United Kingdom 29awards
Joined 13th June 2013
Forum Posts: 249

I've often noticed that there are people
who scoff at the idea of religion, whilst
believing in the strangest of myths and
legends, which seem just as unlikely as
mister god...

for me, that's the real mystery...


Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

I am inclined to rest my case. To argue that the failure of psionics to provide any real evidence of its existence is that it could be linked to lethal genetic traits is just special pleading. So where are the psychics who bleed at the nose, the mediums who are epidemiologically linked to early death, the dowsers filling our hospital wards. That is the kind of evidence that would make such a hypothesis a viable one to consider. And as there are claimed to be various forms of psi, telepathy, pk, clairvoyance, precognition, it seems at least a little odd that they are all linked to lethal genes. It could be argued that there is some primary gene complex involved, I suppose. But as an explanation, it needs evidence and coherence, clarity and explanatory content.The simplest and most convincing explanation is the simplest. It doesn't exist. When Randi offers a million dollars to anyone who can offer robust evidence of psychic powers under laboratory conditions and no-one avails themselves of it, when we know of the tricks of cold reading and deliberate fraud on the part of mediums, when double blind tests of dowsing turn up chance results only, it is reasonable to conclude, subject to future possible evidence of course, that it is just not there.
And welcome Dartford. This feeds into your question. I don't think it's a mystery. We are a credulous species, arguably an evolutionary heuristic, and we can believe six impossible things before breakfast without even trying. To try and control one's credulity by critical thinking is never easy and probably fails more often that it succeeds. But we do try.

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449

reminds me of stigmata, poltergeists, that crazy houseville and the Exorcist

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

Yes, we do love narrative and strive to create coherent stories for our lives. Sometimes our need for such can drive us into the arms of creative reconstruction. Which is why anecdotal evidence is so suspect. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449

are we saying the evidence was falsified or inconclusive ?

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

What, of stigmata and poltergeists and the like? Often inconclusive, but there is certainly evidence of fraud. And fraud, combined with over assessment of our perception, nonconscious confabulation, confirmation bias and all the other psychological flaws that our rational minds are heir to, is strongly suspected in many cases though can't be proven. It cannot be definitively declared that it is all fraud by any means, but Hume long ago nailed down the coffin of this one. He said, effectively, that the evidence for a 'miracle' had to be such that it was more reasonable to believe that the miracle had happened than that people had lied or misperceived. And this was effectively never the case. We know that people lie. We know that they commit fraud. We know that they fool themselves. We do not know there are poltergeists or true stigmata. The rational conclusion is obvious.

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

I confess that I am lost at the moment in this thread, and have little to no idea what exactly the topic is or what the wors used mean. And most likely quite a few people are.

But what I can salvage is that the talk is now about psionics, poltergeists, and the limits of science. I stand by my slightly sarcastic surmation as Science tends towards the empirical nature, the proverble, rather than the theoretical.

If Science is constantly getting it wrong, or rather having to constantly reavaluate, then in a way it is more inconstant than Religion. The former being evolutionary in order to be right, while the latter is stable/stagnant and holding to the assertion it is right regardless. In other words looks a bit like Science kind of needs faith to be right, while Religion often has evidence that it is right and sticks to it. Some mild babbling from me other here.


Main point: Anything in the public arena or domain can be open to analysis and criticism, but does not necessarily have to act on these. Partly becuase change is not always for the better, and partly for those flim-flam things called feelings, faith, beleif, and conduct.


Being brutally honest all the time makes you a brute, and nobody likes someone who always rains on their parade. Not even reality is overly disposed to destroying over creation.

Something, something, Neitzsche, critic destroys, philosopher creates new meaning. Something, something, double entendre, sarcasm, popular phrase, something, something, message ends.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

I must admit that the debate has wandered, though, in my view, none the worse for that. It is not an examination essay but a discussion and such is the true nature of the beast.
I do not understand your comment about science being empirical rather than theoretical. The two words are not exclusive. Science is both. It bases its understanding upon the empirical, that which is gained through the senses by direct observation, and then uses induction to describe laws, descriptive accounts of the way the world behaves, and to create hypotheses or attempted explanations of the way the world works. These are then subject to empirical investigation, allowing them to create predictions that can be experimentally verified, or not, and if the hypothesis becomes generally regarded as by far the best explanation it becomes a theory. So the empirical informs and validates the theoretical. Both are necessary constituents of the scientific method.
You are absolutely right that science is more 'inconstant' than religion, but the word has totally the wrong connotations. It is adaptable, reworking and refining its understanding in the light of new evidence.That is its strength and the reason that it has made such incredible advances in understanding.
However I cannot see why science needs faith to be right. It is never more than provisionally right by its own tenets and does not need faith. If you would care to explain that observation more fully I would be interested in why you think that. Nor am I at all sure that religion has 'evidence' that it is right. I have never come across any significant examples. Again I would be glad of examples. If you consider the whole spectrum of religious beliefs, then, by contradiction, most of religion is wrong. The only constant seems to be a belief in some supernormal being or world who/that affects our life in this world.
Again, I am not sure as to your main point. Of course criticism does not necessarily require change. And I agree very much that people think with their emotions (and I do not exclude myself). As Hume famously put it, 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them'. An astute observation borne out by modern psychology. But that cannot be taken to mean that we should eschew rationality, that we should not do the best with our imperfect brains that we can.
Being brutally honest makes you a brute. Begging the question. And I would totally reject the description. Being honest may make you unpopular and being honest in certain circumstances can be hurtful, deliberate or otherwise, but I cannot see that this forum is such a place. It is for 'open and frank' debate. If anyone is honestly offended by anything said, and I can see no reason for them to be, our beliefs and assumptions should always be open to alternative views, then they do not have to read it. It is for those involved and those interested. It certainly interests me. And I have never been one to disguise and hide my world view for fear of not being popular. You seem to think that that is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. I am not attempting to equate myself with Socrates, I would not be so ridiculous, but there is a place for the gadfly in society.
You will have to explain your comment about reality and overcreation. It beats me. As largely does your final sentence. I take it to mean that criticism is negative and creativity better and that (my?) comments are sarcastic and littered with double entendres and popular phrases. The latter is for you to judge (though if there are any double entendres in it they, at least, were definitely accidental) but the former, as I understand you, I reject. All discussion and debate is a balance between criticism and positive (creative?) elucidation of ones own position. Both are necessary in the search for truth and understanding. I apologise for the pomposity of that phrase, but even on this minor stage, that is ultimately what it is.  

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

Lets break this down in reverse shall we.
The first line is not a dig at anyone other than myself, regular listeners/readers if they cared could probably use that sentence as a surmation of some of posts, most likely a lot of the earlier ones. Rather than requoting and rehashing the same phrase over and over, I elected to 'phone it in' and just give a gist of the sentence.

My point about being brutally honest and being a brute is that it takes you beyond being unpopular: it invites ostracism and is un-natural. Nothing in reality is completely destructive, even a black hole is based upon a star first having been created and grown, so mere comments surely cannot be completely destructive.

Which leads onto the point that you often disassemble what one person says they believe in, and replace it with terminology that you do not seem to have any passion for. It is like breaking a painting down into numbers and having no care for those numbers, merely diluting out of habit like a machine.

Next point, Science and Religion. The idea was that Science, as it often proves to have to be reavaluated and corrected, any first conclusion or even second conclusion seems to be based on faith. As more often than not it is proven to be wrong, so there has to be faith in the Science that the first answer is correct and always will be correct.
While on the other side, Religion is based on 'evidence' that is intrinsic to it and therefore does not seek to undermine itself.
So the outcome is that Science is an inconstant and Religion is a constant. An inconstant requires faith to be right at a specific moment as it will inevitably change in the future, not faith in the religious sense but faith as in simply believing. A constant meanwhile, once founded upon evidence does not evolve and change, that evidence is taken to be true regardless of how flimsy it appears.
Therefore Science has faith, and Religion has evidence. All topsy-turvy and rather feeble an idea but enough to turn everything on its head once.

Although Science contains both empirical investigation and theorisation, without being proved right or wrong through empirical investigation a theory remains a theory. A theory untested remains a theory and lacks the cornerstone of Science of being tested, and thereby seems more apt to another field of thought. After all, without the full Scientific Method, roughly idea then theory then test then results, the process stops at theory and seems more like a bit of philosophising than science.


All in all, you get bogged down in the details a bit too much and as such do not have punchy and interesting posts. This is not a bad thing, when most posts are short and interesting in different ways, and some of the internet contains no dissection and criticism to the same well-honed degree. So your posts aren't bad and are interesting, its just that they are longer than most, and I tend to reply with the same length.

Therefore making it a private chin-wag between two or three people and becomes a slugging match, and less of a feasable forum that others cna post on. And, yes, I am aware of the irony of talking about lengthy posts within a lengthy post. Irony does not escape me, only other things.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

I am sorry, but I fail to understand precisely what you are saying about the brutal honesty. I assume that you are applying it to my posts or there seems no point in saying it.
In what way are they brutal? They merely doubt the claims that are being made in a public forum. Nor are they ‘completely’ destructive. They are critical but based on a positive acceptance of rationality, critical thinking and science as, in my view, the most successful way of understanding the nature of the world that humans have ever devised. The evidence of its success is undeniable. If to simply disagree with someone in a public forum is unnatural and invites ostracism then this world is in a sadder and sorrier state than I thought. I am not clear, however, whether you regard my posts as ‘completely destructive’ or not, as you appear to be chiding me for it, but then appear to be arguing that comments cannot be completely destructive. Which is it?
Nor do I fully comprehend what you mean by disassembling what one person says, except in the simple sense of trying to clarify and understand, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I accept that I may not grasp correctly what others are saying, particularly when they express themselves in a ‘poetic’ or heavily compressed manner, but that is an endemic problem with all communication.
As to the lack of passion and painting by numbers I respect your subjective opinion and aesthetic, though not recognising the description.
Science. You have failed to grasp the point that I have made repeatedly. That science is provisional. It is our best understanding at this moment and is always open to revision with the possibility of new data and/or understanding. So no conclusion is based on faith. It is accepted as the best explanation we have. No scientist accepts that an answer is indubitably correct, for now and for ever. The whole philosophy of science is based on falsifiability. A scientist should not look for evidence that he/she is right, but for the disconfirming evidence that they are wrong. So you are totally wrong in your conclusion that they have to have faith. Remember faith is the belief in something without adequate evidence.
You repeat that religion is based on evidence. I ask again what is this evidence? I suppose you could say that Christianity is based on the evidence of the Bible, for example, but that is only evidence to those who suppose it to be divinely inspired. I presume that that is what you mean by intrinsic to itself. So you need to go back a step and provide evidence that the Bible is exactly that. And that is where the evidence fails. It can be accepted on faith but there is no agreed evidential base. Without it religion does, and must, rely upon faith. In passing, your idea that religion is constant shows an unfamiliarity with the actual evolution, fragmentation and mutability of religion.
You are correct, to some degree, in saying that science seeks to undermine itself (at least it seeks to undermine its conclusions) but you do not recognise that that is its tremendous strength as opposed to the dogmatics of religion.
So I absolutely deny that science has faith, and certainly doubt that religion has anything in the way of evidence outside of its own contentious assumptions, confined within the limits of its individual world view and at odds with the 'evidence' of other religions. You have certainly provided none, merely reiterated the claim. The fact that there is a profusion of religions, but only one 'science' (which is not to deny the disputes within its borders) is worthy of note.
You also do not understand the word theory. In science it has a specific meaning, very different from its popular usage. One cannot have an untested theory. Scientists generate hypotheses, attempted explanations of some state of affairs in the world. These hypotheses are then tested empirically (remember the emphasis being on falsification) Only when it has been so tested successfully AND is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists working in that field as the best present explanation (there are always some mavericks) does it gain the status of a theory. So your description of a theory bears no relationship to its actual meaning.
I accept the criticism of getting bogged down in detail. Perhaps I do take things too seriously and am irritatingly analytical and pedantic. But that’s who I am. And that is the importance of proper debate to me. Unless there is real analysis of what is said then we will just be talking past one another. I can see how your view of science has led to some confusion. I hope that we both now can discuss the case with mutual understanding.
The alternative is to let misunderstanding and error (from whoever) to simply slide by unchallenged and unopposed. And that is not in my nature. If that damns me as brutal, makes me unpopular and leads to social ostracism then so be it. The truth is important and should be treated as such, remembering that truth is provisional and ultimately beyond any absolute certainty. Not to mention having an undeniably subjective element. But if we do not care for the truth then we do not care for anything

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

You really have failed to understand so I shall put it bluntly.
1. Make your posts short/shorter or do not post at all. "Brevity is the soul of wit."
2. My words and ideas about Religion and Science like a fair amount of my words are not to be taken as gospel or fact so can largely be ignored. Suffice to say I made up an impossible and warped idea simply because I could.
3. An untested theory can exist, but the reality is closer to it being an as-yet-untested-theory, such as the Higgs-Bosen particle; evidence at Cern supercollider followed theory after some time.
4. Truth is not always important. See 'white lies', Nietzsche on the value of untruth, and the sheer impossibility of conveying every definitive fact while being mortal or indeed in a short conversation.
5. I respect your decision or choice or fundamental need or view or whatever to stick to such a 'scientific' view, but you are human before science. So have some heart, some soul, some mistakes, for the sake of whatever cause or ideal you hold dear. And if you do not hold anything dear, and are even beyond cynicism and nihilism then all hope is lost.

You are evidently not a troll as you show intelligence and a cause and a methodology but it is now getting boring and too bogged down. And please do not dissasemble or analyse or do anything similar to this post in a response. Any further talk between us two on this topic should now either be in private messages or on another thread, rather than hijacking this one. This thread has evolved and is now dead and estranged to its topic, unless someone new posts or new idea/post appears.

Good day to you sir!

johnrot
Tyrant of Words
21awards
Joined 10th Oct 2012
Forum Posts: 3645

dartford said:I've often noticed that there are people
who scoff at the idea of religion, whilst
believing in the strangest of myths and
legends, which seem just as unlikely as
mister god...

for me, that's the real mystery...




i am in no way a religous man but how can you believe in ghosts but not a certain god?

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

To Viddax.
Your conclusion: I must begin at the end. With your Scythian shot. I am afraid that I am obviously rejecting your requirement that any further communication should be via other channels. Anything said in a public forum should be answered in that forum, should an answer be thought necessary. Others may be interested in the topic and are entitled to a response. But, if you do wish to continue the debate elsewhere I would be perfectly happy to do so. A thread is a good name for something that loops and twists and turns according to its own internal dynamics. Nor does it cause anyone any problems. No-one is obliged to wade through such turgid stuff and there is no reason why other aspects of the subject cannot be discussed at the same time. So, I can see no harm in such discussion.
I cannot yet conclude that the thread is dead. Nor that it is totally divorced from its topic. Its remit was the nature of reported supernatural/mythological creatures. Discussion of the nature of science and its application to the question does not seem to me to be totally divorced from the subject, so those, like yourself, who questioned this, were asking relevant, if arguably peripheral, questions.
Point 1. You may wish that I should make shorter posts– and you may well be right. But that is a point of view and not a necessary requirement. My opinion is that the post should be sufficient to deal with the points and to answer with a properly constructed, sufficiently detailed and, where necessary, evidenced argument on topics such as these.
Point 2. In this case I think little need to be said. If your ideas were recognised by you as ‘impossible and warped’ then why defend them and then complain about the length of the answers?
Point 3. I checked the Wikki entry on scientific theory. It is a good and sound one and I recommend it. It will explain and clarify the exact nature of a scientific theory better than myself.
Firstly, there is a sad overlap between the correct scientific usage of the term theory and the general understanding. ‘It’s only a theory.’ Many popular science writers are guilty of using the term in the grey areas. This does lead to understandable confusion and it is an unfortunate thing that we do not have a different and clearly defined word for scientific theory.
Secondly, hypotheses can achieve the exalted status of theory by retrospective testing. Where direct ‘confirmation’ of a hypothesis may be practically very difficult, consider Eddington’s testing of relativity during the 1919 solar eclipse, there can be substantial retrospective testing, where a theory is successfully tested against previous anomalous data and/or unpublished data.
Thirdly, theories are generally explanatory ideas that explain a whole set of disparate phenomena. Therefore one frequently finds that there remain areas where the theory still has not had a specific aspect directly confirmed. The Higgs boson was predicted as part of the well established standard model of particle physics, which had already been ‘confirmed’ (the scare quotes are a reminder that all scientific knowledge is provisional and open to change) by the evidence for the existence of quarks.
Fourthly. Even if this was an example of an untested theory, that would not permit the conclusion that theories and empirical evidence are divorced, which was the original point. I quote your own words, ‘without being proved right or wrong through empirical investigation a theory remains a theory.’
Point 4. I would not disagree that the truth is not always important. There is a truth as to the number of pears on my pear tree but I would not consider that important. Although one could imagine scenarios in which it might be. But that does not allow one to conclude that therefore all truth is unimportant. So I will rephrase my statement. In important questions truth is important. The impossibility of grasping the whole truth of some specific state of affairs in the world is a point well made. But again, does not prevent us from seeking for the (provisional) truth within the accepted parameters of the question.
Point 5. Why do you seemingly assume that I have no heart (soul I will allow as I have no idea what that ill defined and nebulous entity amounts to) nor make mistakes. Though why that is a fault I cannot imagine. Unfortunately it is untrue. Then to even suggest that I might not hold anything dear (can you provide a scintilla of evidence?) or that I could even be beyond cynicism and nihilism is the fallacy of poisoning the well. Anchoring the reader on to pejorative terms that influence their opinion. A well known psychological pattern.
Conclusion revisited. It is kind of you to conclude that I am not a troll. Though why such a possibility should be considered is a little beyond me. As I have openly said in my profile I am an atheist, rationalist, physicalist and sceptic. Those are perfectly acceptable world views and I do not have to apologise for holding them. I am sorry that you find the subject boring. I certainly do not. But I cannot deny that others will. However, that surely holds true for most, if not all, subjects.
So, good day to you, too, sir. I rather like that. Rather Pickwickian don’t you think?
To Johnrot. You wonder how people can believe in ghosts without believing in a God. Very easily I would say. Ghosts are endemic features of animistic cultures, and when you consider the strange phenomenon of death, allied to the weird survival of loved ones in dreams and the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, they seem to be almost demanded. But they do not require the existence of a God. For example some consider ghosts to be manifestations of ESP, an earthly power that does not require a God. Even the spiritualist contention that ghosts are from some other ‘plane’, does not necessarily demand a God at all, merely that our universe is more complex and mysterious than we thought.
A mystery unsolved does not point to a God. That is the famous God of the Gappery.

Go to page:
Go to: