Reality and Fantasy, a discussion.

Light-hearted discussions, forum games and anything that doesn't fit into the other forums.

Moderators: Moderators, Celestial Heavens Staff

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Jul 11 2007, 15:17

Corribus wrote:
Jolly Joker wrote:I disagree. The question you'd have to ask would be: are there any EFFECTS you cannot explain (currently), but could explain with the existance of fairies and/or ghosts.

No, no, no, nononononono. How many times must it be stated that invoking nonempirical beliefs ARE_NOT_HYPOTHESES? Just as invoking god as an explanation for lightning is not a hypthesis, you cannot say "well because I have no other explanation, I can just make up anything and that's a scientific hypothesis". A hypothesis has to be testable. Suggesting that a hot spot in an old house is due to patches of methane gas and oxygen that are combusing at low rates due to disturbances in earth's magnetic field due to large iron deposits in the ground may be an absolutely absurd idea with very low probability of being right, but it IS a hypothesis, because we can test many aspects of it. Suggesting a hot spot in an old house is due to a ghost is NOT a hypothesis because you cannot test for ghosts.

It would simply mean that it was a hypothesis and one might start and try to think about an experiment to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

I'm waiting for a description of your proposed experiment.


That's bull, and you know it. If you'd always formulate theories only on the grounds of what you can test at the moment you'd have some problems with scientifical progress and many ideas would never have been formulated. Of course, if you formulate something you must strive to find a method to test it, otherwise it's an irrelevant hypothesis and you'd look for another you might be able to test to.
But obviously you have to allow a hypothesis to be formulated, otherwise you can't start thinking about a way how to verify or falsify it - which I wrote.
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Grumpy Old Wizard
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Tower Grump

Postby Grumpy Old Wizard » Jul 11 2007, 15:25

Corribus wrote:
I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who has ever seen a ghost/faery/elemental is delusional or misintrepreting what they have seen.

It's a very easy and sensible belief to hold. The nature of the world has yet to be demonstrated to be less than 100% empirical.


I still don't get it. If they saw ghost/faeries/elemental that is observable evidence. Something not just based on an idea. Just because you haven't observed it doesn't mean that it is not observable.

Now if you are saying that everything must be able to be put into your laboratory right now for you to observe or they don't exist then there are lots of things that exist that you will never know of.

Corribus wrote:
No, but if you saw some guy flying around in the skies through no visible means throwing lightning bolts that might be something to consider.

Alright... but have you seen such a thing? And if you here admit that lightning bolts are clearly not evidence for the existance of Zeus, how can you be so confident that hot air pockets and creaky noises are evidence for the existance of ghosts? Nobody STILL can tell me the criteria for credulity. I'd be quite happy if someone could. The fact that nobody can, or even will try, just makes me that much more confident that there ARE no criteria and that it's all blind and misguided faith.


No, I haven't. But I don't believe in Zeus. You are the one who proposed his existance.

When you combine voices, noises, apparitions, and measurable thermal and electromagnetic field variations it is logical to conclude that something is causing it. It is observable and data has been obtained. There is nothing about blind misguided faith there.

I presented several ideas in this thread, including the possibility of it being a ghost. According to my understanding you say you don't know what is causing it but it definately can't be a ghost becasue you don't think ghosts exist. It is not blind misguided faith to base proposals on observation.

Corribus wrote:
The idea is that the ghost uses the energy to do things like make a visible presence, make objects move, cause sounds, ect.

If you believe in thermodynamics, such actions require work. For instance, if you want to create a "cold spot" (as in, a refrigerator), this takes work because it is a thermodynamically unfavorable process. How does something not physical do physical work?


I would not presume to know how ghosts manipulate energy if indeed they do. As I said, the idea was proposed by paranormal investigators because they observed that there are EMF disturbances and cold spots present in hauntings.

Ghosts are apparantly able to manifest themselves at least to a degree in the physical because they can be seen or at least create an image. Objects do sometimes move in hauntings so physical work is done even if we don't understand the process yet.

GOW
Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 15:31

Jolly Joker wrote:That's bull, and you know it. If you'd always formulate theories only on the grounds of what you can test at the moment you'd have some problems with scientifical progress and many ideas would never have been formulated. Of course, if you formulate something you must strive to find a method to test it, otherwise it's an irrelevant hypothesis and you'd look for another you might be able to test to. But obviously you have to allow a hypothesis to be formulated, otherwise you can't start thinking about a way how to verify or falsify it - which I wrote.

It is not bull that a theory or hypothesis has to be testable. That's a very basic tenet of the scientific method. If we throw that out, then science as a discipline ceases to exist. Does it have to be testable immediately? No. There are certainly limits to technology. It can be a viable hypothesis if it's not immediately testable, so how do you ascertain if something in the future is testable or not? I admit, that's a blurry line. The distinction is usually made that a hypothesis is testable *if* it is based on reasoning that is in turn based on extrapolations of current knowledge/theories (which ARE based on currently testable hypotheses). For instance, when the Bose-Einstein condensate was first hypothesized, it was done so based upon extrapolations which were based on theories that could, at the time, be tested. Granted, it was many years before technology was sufficiently advanced to actually test the actual Bose-Einstein hypothesis, but because the basic theories on which the hypothesis was based were themselves testable, it is easy to assume that hypotheses based upon those theory would also be testable. The ghost "hypothesis" is based on nothing but speculation - there are no scientific theories or laws which would lead you logically to propose a ghost, other than that you saw something strange - and so we cannot know whether it is testable or not, and so it is not a hypothesis.

Ethric's post before your suggested something about life-forms caught in some inter-dimensional something or other (don't remember the exact phrasing). That's getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I don't think he's there yet, because it's a lot of hand-waving, but if you did enough research and knew enough theoretical physics you could probably propose something based on current theories that might, though probably fairly implausible, might be construed as a possible consequence of current theories (which themselves may not be testable yet, but which would certainly be at least based on testable theories). A lot of generations there so it's not a GREAT hypothesis, but at least it's good enough that you could say, "yeah, some day we can probably test for worm-holes or whatever". But if you say, "Oh, that hot spot is caused by Uncle Bob because he died without eating his favorite tacos one more time", there's no way that can be based on any testable scientific theory, and so it's not a hypothesis.

I'm truly sorry, if I offended you there. I've meant that only half in earnest, but still, I'd like to point out that I didn't imply you didn't READ them. I just said you'd have a problem to TELL them (believably) or tell your son some fairy tale about the stars or something. If that's wrong, again, sorry. No offense meant.

No offense taken - I only wish to say that it is unfair for you to assume that because I believe that only certain things exist, that doesn't mean I am very capable and actually enjoy speaking of things that I know (ok, believe) can't or don't exist. After all, I *do* play a certain game called Heroes of Might and Magic. I am actually, if you allow me a modicum of prideful boasting on my own behalf, quite a capable story-teller, and I have a few witnesses to testify to as much on my behalf. :)
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Grumpy Old Wizard
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Tower Grump

Postby Grumpy Old Wizard » Jul 11 2007, 15:33

Corribus wrote:
Grumpy Old Wizard wrote:The existance of a thing is not relative to the relevance of the thing to an observer. It either exists or it does not.

Just for the sake of argument... how do you know this to be true?

That's the old "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" philosophical question. If you don't observe something, what makes you so sure that it's there?


Build a house out of wood in a remote location.

Get you a big washtub. Go outside your house and start a bonfire. Fill the washtub with hot coals. Empty the washtub out quickly and leave your house. Go to the mall.

Your house will burn down even if you are not there to observe it.

GOW
Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

User avatar
Caradoc
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 1780
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Marble Falls Texas

Postby Caradoc » Jul 11 2007, 15:40

@ Corribus
No, just because there are lots of "reports", that does not mean anything! You cannot draw any conclusion from "Lots of people believe it!" That was my whole point. It's a logical fallacy.


Agreed. But that is not the point I am making. I am saying that the volume of reports is itself a phenomenon worth consideration. Mass Delusion and Rampant Hoaxing are two possible (but statistically unlikely) explanations, and these could be validated. But until they are, the Fairies Exist theory cannot be excluded.

The tryptamine family of drugs (including DMT) can induce hallucinations where "machine elves" appear and converse with the tripper. The interesting thing is that these appearances are highly consistent from trip to trip and person to person. Fairies may not be lies and hoaxes after all, but some some psycho-neurological phenomenon, origin currently unknown.
Before you criticize someone, first walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have their shoes.

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Jul 11 2007, 16:09

@ Corribus

There's a step missing , of course. You have the sightings, you may allow the hypothesis (there may be "ghosts") but what you need (and what's still missing) is a viable theory of what ghosts were (not violating true and proven laws, but maybe expanding them), and then try to find a way to test for them.

For example, you might formulate a theory that in situations of an extremely shocking and violent death the electromagnetic so-called "aura" that can be made visible with the Kirlian-photography of the dying may "imprint" itself on something "suitable" (which would be defined next, but I don't have the time to start phantasizing about that).

This is NOT meant as a serious theory, of course, it's just fleshing things out to make a point.

The trouble here would be that testing the theory might be morally questionable: you couldn't start to try and "produce" a ghost - it would be morally rather questionable. :)
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 17:21

GOW wrote:I still don't get it. If they saw ghost/faeries/elemental that is observable evidence

No, that’s not observable evidence. That’s an observation. There’s a big difference. Evidence implies a logical connection. Merely observing something does not ensure a logical connection between the observation and your interpretation/explanation.

For instance. I observe a ball rolling down a hill. I can make any number of interpretations/explanations of that observation. The empirical, logical interpretation is that the force of gravity is causing the ball to roll from a point of high potential energy to a point of low potential energy. We can make this logical interpretation because of a scientific theory, based on many different designed empirical experiments, which allows us to make predictions. We can test our interpretation (a hypothesis) by doing scientific experiments such as putting the ball at the bottom of the hill, and observing the results. When we make a good hypothesis and design good experiments, we know a priori what we will observe if the hypothesis is correct. These observations are then “evidence” to support our original interpretation of gravity as the stimulus for the ball rolling down the hill. After these observations are made, we can work at understanding HOW gravity causes balls to roll down hills, and increase our knowledge. Note that evidence really doesn’t prove anything – evidence is something that helps us eliminate other possible interpretations of an observation, and narrow down the possible interpretations that might be right.

That is not the only interpretation/explanation of the ball rolling down the hill, though. Someone else may just as easily say that the ball rolled down the hill (an observation) because a spirit pushed the ball down the hill. However, it is inappropriate to then say that the ball rolling down the hill is evidence for the existence of a spirit standing at that point of space and time. This is because there is no logical reason to suppose that there is a spirit standing on the hill, and that that spirit is the cause of the observation. You cannot design experiments to test for the existence of spirits – in the affirmative or in the negative - and so you cannot gather evidence to support this interpretation of the observation. Now, you can make many observations of balls rolling down hills, and you can interpret each one of these as due to spirits pushing balls, but none of them are evidence, because you’ve designed no experiments to make any logical deductions about your interpretation. You can not narrow down your possible interpretations. All you have are observations, and observations in themselves do not constitute evidence.

For the same reason, if you enter a room and observe a dead body on the floor, that observation is not evidence to support the theory that the person was murdered. There are many possible interpretations of a dead body in a room, of which one is that the person is murdered. Others include: the person fell, the person had a heart attack, the person committed suicide, the person was struck dead by a demon. With only this observation, it is impossible to ascertain which interpretation is correct. In other words, the observation itself is not evidence to support ANY interpretation, be it ghosts, demons, murder or the simple bad luck of an anvil falling on his head. Certainly you will agree that if someone ELSE tells you that they saw a dead guy in a room, your ability to rely on their interpretation becomes even LESS. Now, if you enter the room and observe a bunch of other things, such as a bloody knife, blood all over the walls, a broken door that looks to have been kicked down, you can begin to frame a better interpretation because now you have other observations that allow you to make a logical connection between the main observation (dead guy) and the interpretation (murder). We may even start to call these observations “evidence” because we can start to make logical deductions based on several independent observations. But perhaps a demon is still a possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that the guy arranged the scene to look like a murder even though he killed himself, possibly for some insurance benefit for his family. So, while a string of independent observations allow you to narrow down your possible interpretations using logic, they certainly are not proof that the guy was murdered, although they may be convincing enough to allow you to deduce with relative confidence (high probability) that the person was, in fact, murdered. But when someone points out the other possible (though low probability) interpretations, how do you therefore become confident in your interpretation? You make a hypothesis (the guy was murdered) and then design experiments. Such as: if the guy was murdered, there would be fingerprints from someone else. So you look around, and indeed find some fingerprints, and this is more evidence that the guy was murdered because it eliminates other possible interpretations. By collecting evidence, you eliminate other possible interpretations until only one remains. In principle, of course, there may be others you didn’t think of, and that’s always a risk in the judicial system, AND in science. Which is why scientists keep testing their theories even after there is lots of evidence to support them. But going back to the murder – if you interpretation is “violent demon killed the guy”, the dead guy is not evidence, certainly, that a violent demon did the deed. Nor is a bloody knife, nor is blood splattered on the wall, nor in fact is “A demon was here” written on a piece of paper. Why? Because no logical deduction can be made connecting your observations to a demon. That does not mean that the demon-idea is WRONG. Maybe a demon DID kill the man. But there’s no experiment you can design that will test for demons, and so there’s no way to eliminate “demons” as a possible interpretation. You could always say, “BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DEMON!” no matter what your observation was. See an anvil on the floor and the guy’s skull was crushed? “BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DEMON”. None of these can be evidence for demonhood because there’s no way to show whether that interpretation could be wrong or right. It’s an interpretation NOT based on logic, and evidence does not exist for such interpretations – not until you can connect the observation to the interpretation logically.

The point to all this being – many people want to point to “evidence” to support fantastical explanations for empirical observations, but it’s a paradox. If it’s a fantastical explanation, you cannot have evidence to support it, because of the very definition of evidence. The mere observation of something is not evidence for anything, except that you observed it in the first place. You need to be able to say, “If what I observed is due to X, then I should also observe A, B, and C if I do D, E, and F, respectively.” You can’t do with a ghost.

Caradoc wrote:Agreed. But that is not the point I am making. I am saying that the volume of reports is itself a phenomenon worth consideration. Mass Delusion and Rampant Hoaxing are two possible (but statistically unlikely) explanations, and these could be validated. But until they are, the Fairies Exist theory cannot be excluded.

You cannot compare the statistics of two things happening if you cannot even calculate them. It’s another logical fallacy to say that, since A is very improbable, B must be correct – nay, COULD BE – correct. The extreme improbability of one event does not logically lead to a conclusion that another event is possible, let alone probable.

Putting that logical fallacy aside, you cannot even calculate any odds for fairies exist, so how are you supposed to evaluate the probability that it is possible, compared to the “low” (which even there I’m not sure how you think you can assess) probability that everyone is delusional. Even if I agree that the odds are low that so many people are misinterpreting what they observe, how do you know that the odds of even ONE person NOT misinterpreting the event aren’t orders of magnitude lower? Is it even something for which odds can be calculated?

Besides which, it’s not really even something that has statistical meaning. There’s not a “chance” that people are lying. They either are or they aren’t. There’s not a “chance” that the theory of gravity is correct. It either is or it isn’t.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Caradoc
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 1780
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Marble Falls Texas

Postby Caradoc » Jul 11 2007, 17:52

Caradoc wrote:
Agreed. But that is not the point I am making. I am saying that the volume of reports is itself a phenomenon worth consideration. Mass Delusion and Rampant Hoaxing are two possible (but statistically unlikely) explanations, and these could be validated. But until they are, the Fairies Exist theory cannot be excluded.

You cannot compare the statistics of two things happening if you cannot even calculate them. It’s another logical fallacy to say that, since A is very improbable, B must be correct – nay, COULD BE – correct. The extreme improbability of one event does not logically lead to a conclusion that another event is possible, let alone probable.

Putting that logical fallacy aside, you cannot even calculate any odds for fairies exist, so how are you supposed to evaluate the probability that it is possible, compared to the “low” (which even there I’m not sure how you think you can assess) probability that everyone is delusional. Even if I agree that the odds are low that so many people are misinterpreting what they observe, how do you know that the odds of even ONE person NOT misinterpreting the event aren’t orders of magnitude lower? Is it even something for which odds can be calculated?

Besides which, it’s not really even something that has statistical meaning. There’s not a “chance” that people are lying. They either are or they aren’t. There’s not a “chance” that the theory of gravity is correct. It either is or it isn’t.


As I'm sure you know, hypotheses are evaluated statistically. The level of confidence in a conclusion is expressed in terms of the likelihood that the same result would have occurred by chance. I believe I could do an analysis using existing data about the incidence of delusional states (or lying) that would find that the probability of these as the source for so many reports is very low. The Fairie Hypothesis might be studied by measuring tryptamine levels of those who did and didn't see them.

But again I note that my point is that until one explanation is confirmed, others remain candidates. You can guess at which is the most likely, but until one hypothesis produces statistically significant results, the jury is still out.

BTW: "Either they are or they aren't" is a funny thing to hear from someone who is always lecturing on quantum physics.
Before you criticize someone, first walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have their shoes.

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 18:07

Caradoc wrote:As I'm sure you know, hypotheses are evaluated statistically. The level of confidence in a conclusion is expressed in terms of the likelihood that the same result would have occurred by chance.

That implies that you CAN calculate probabilities. For instance, you claim that the probability that all the people who claim to have seen ghosts are lying or delusion is LOW. Maybe. There is also a chance (a real, calculate-able chance), that all the molecules in a given patch of air could, for a brief time, move very fast in unison - faster than the statistical time-average - increasing the temperature of that patch of air for a short amount of time. That chance would be very LOW as well. But it can be determined AND it may not be low given the amount of observers and time you have to deal with. Despite its low likelihood, I certainly find it more credible than "ghosts are responsible", for which chance cannot even be evaluated.

I believe I could do an analysis using existing data about the incidence of delusional states (or lying) that would find that the probability of these as the source for so many reports is very low.

Even if you COULD show that there is a "chance" that someone isn't lying or delusional, that would only prove that they observed something, not that their interpretation of the event is correct. I don't dispute that people observed SOMETHING. I dispute that their interpretation of "ghosts" as an explanation is the correct one. Can you put a % chance on the likelihood of their interpretation being correct? And the low chance of some other likelihood does not mean that there is a nonzero chance for this one.

The Fairie Hypothesis might be studied by measuring tryptamine levels of those who did and didn't see them.

What would that prove?

But again I note that my point is that until one explanation is confirmed, others remain candidates.

No, that is not a logical deduction. It is possible to rule some explanations out without positively identifying another as 100% correct.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Ethric
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 4583
Joined: 27 Nov 2005

Postby Ethric » Jul 11 2007, 18:47

How do you rule out the existance of faeries? :creative:
Who the hell locks these things?
- Duke

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 19:04

Ethric wrote:How do you rule out the existance of faeries? :creative:

You can't, which is why it's not an empirical hypothesis. Which brings us in a circle back to the fact that such speculation is pointless and teaches us nothing. For whatever empirical "proof" I can give you for anything, you can just say, "Well I believe faeries are responsible!". I say, "gravity causes balls to roll down hills." You say, "Nope, faeries are responsible." I say, "Peter killed John." you say, "Nope, faeries killed john." I say, "That light in the night is due to a freak occurance of spontaneous emission of all gas molecules in that pocket of air at the same time. (a technical possibility, by the way, however unlikely)" You say, "Nope, faeries are responsible." In any case, I cannot prove you wrong. The point is, no matter WHAT logical explanation I give you for anything, you can always say, "Well faeries are the REAL reason." And I'd not be able to prove you wrong, because proof in the scientific sense implies empirical connection. It depends on whether you believe in empiricism. The fact that you don't NEED to heed empirical evidence for an empirical explanation in order to invoke a nonempirical explanation should tell you something.

By the way, if you are truly interested in probability and chance and the way it relates to the potential of unlikely empirical phenomena as plausible explanations for any observation, I recommend checking out "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. There's a chapter in there on that very topic (dealing specifically with the "unlikely" explanations for the origins of life on earth). It's a fascinating read. Actually, if I find the time, I may provide some exerpts here. Caradoc, among others, may find them interesting.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Jul 11 2007, 19:11

Caradoc wrote:BTW: "Either they are or they aren't" is a funny thing to hear from someone who is always lecturing on quantum physics.

Yeah, well, it's Schrödinger's Katze: no matter quantum physics - the cat is either dead or not, since the cat is no quantum nor is it of a dual particle/wave nature (if that's indeed what it is and not only a construct simply to illustrate what's happening).
Of course, should someone come up with a nice theory about ghosts being a phenomenon of quantum physics that blink in and out of existance I might reconsider. :)
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 19:18

To paraphrase: the act of observation determines the state of the system, at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation.
Last edited by Corribus on Jul 11 2007, 19:23, edited 1 time in total.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Jul 11 2007, 19:21

@ Corribus
I think, you are arguing beside the point here. It's not the ball rolling DOWN the hill that fairies are supposed to roll. The ball rolling DOWN the hill is explained quite nicely. It's the ball rolling UP the hill that needs explanation. At some point - seeing the ball rolling uphill - EVERY idea has its merits, no matter how far-fetched it may be. In the end and in practise, if you can test the validity of an idea without much trouble you'll just do it, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

Personally - and seriously - I think it's not so difficult to make a negative experiment: seeing what TV, mirrors and tricks can do, how difficult is it to believably "emulate" ghosts? If you can do that, if you can "fake" ghosts so that people will believe they saw one or something, you can dismiss a lot of personal evidence.
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 19:45

Jolly Joker wrote:I think, you are arguing beside the point here. It's not the ball rolling DOWN the hill that fairies are supposed to roll. The ball rolling DOWN the hill is explained quite nicely. It's the ball rolling UP the hill that needs explanation. At some point - seeing the ball rolling uphill - EVERY idea has its merits, no matter how far-fetched it may be. In the end and in practise, if you can test the validity of an idea without much trouble you'll just do it, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate please?

If you can do that, if you can "fake" ghosts so that people will believe they saw one or something, you can dismiss a lot of personal evidence.

Good point. Also we cannot neglect the contribution of impartiality. In other words, a good experiment must be blind. Many people who observe something and leap to the conclusion that it is a ghost that is responsible, may be already conditioned to believe that ghosts are a likely explanation for something, OR they have not made an effort to explore other explanations for what they observed. Thus, their claims must be viewed with some bit of skepticism.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

Silence
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 83
Joined: 29 Jan 2006

Postby Silence » Jul 11 2007, 19:45

Jolly Joker wrote:
Caradoc wrote:BTW: "Either they are or they aren't" is a funny thing to hear from someone who is always lecturing on quantum physics.

Yeah, well, it's Schrödinger's Katze: no matter quantum physics - the cat is either dead or not, since the cat is no quantum nor is it of a dual particle/wave nature


Last time I checked, the cat was in clinical death. Dunno whether dead or alive.

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Jul 11 2007, 20:29

Corribus wrote:
Jolly Joker wrote:I think, you are arguing beside the point here. It's not the ball rolling DOWN the hill that fairies are supposed to roll. The ball rolling DOWN the hill is explained quite nicely. It's the ball rolling UP the hill that needs explanation. At some point - seeing the ball rolling uphill - EVERY idea has its merits, no matter how far-fetched it may be. In the end and in practise, if you can test the validity of an idea without much trouble you'll just do it, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate please?


What I mean is that no one cares about the cases that can indeed be explained with, well, I don't know much about rational explanations for those, to tell the truth, I'd be more knowledgable about Ufos and THEIR explanations. But there will be "sightings" that can be explained: people drunk or in a state of mental instability; fog; some practical joke... who knows what. That's the ball rolling down the hill.
However, there'll be those that cannot be explained away. That's the ball rolling UP the hill: you don't HAVE a ready explanation. So something is different and another explanation is called for. It MIGHT be the CIA conducting another drug experiment on unsuspecting victims (which would have a certain probability); it might be something different. However, if there is NO explanation it gets interesting.
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Ethric
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 4583
Joined: 27 Nov 2005

Postby Ethric » Jul 11 2007, 20:41

Ethric wrote:You can't, which is why it's not an empirical hypothesis. Which brings us in a circle back to the fact that such speculation is pointless and teaches us nothing. For whatever empirical "proof" I can give you for anything, you can just say, "Well I believe faeries are responsible!".


Nah that would be silly. I mean, in your examples, for it to be viable to blame the faeries you'd need a better reason than "Because". Like gravity, there's hundreds of years of concrete research around it, far outweighing any evidence of faeries, if any.

My point wasn't that it's futile to try to argue with people who insist on blaming the faeries despite evidence to the contrary. But if someone say they saw something science can't explain, you can't just say they're all nuts/delusional. Might be stuff lurking around that we have yet to catalogue scientifically. Todays fantasy COULD be tomorrows reality, in some cases.
Who the hell locks these things?

- Duke

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jul 11 2007, 20:44

@JJ: Ah, yes, I see what you mean now - and I agree.

@E: It's not that they saw something science can't explain. It's that they saw something and then interpreted it using a non-scientific explanation.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman

User avatar
Kalah
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 20024
Joined: 24 Nov 2005

Postby Kalah » Jul 11 2007, 21:01

Corribus wrote:It's not that they saw something science can't explain. It's that they saw something and then interpreted it using a non-scientific explanation.


Ah, like the conspiracy theorists. I hear that.
In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Goodwill.


Return to “Campfire”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests