Just a question...

Did you read about the Asch conformity experiments, or not?

You seem to be implying that you believe Crash's statement to be false. Do you have some form of evidence to back up that assertion, or are you refuting him with bare incredulity? He's already referred to studies that demonstrate the universal ease of self-deception.When Crash uses the word "fact," I assure you he means "this has been observed, and I have the evidence to back it up." This is very different from the way you use the word "empirical," which apparently to you means something completely different from its normal definition when enclosed in quote marks.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

crashfrog, I read about the Asch conformity experiments 35 years ago, and I still remember them. I also know that any good experiment can be misapplied to draw invalid conclusions from it. You are pulling your own leg here.Experimentation is a wonderful tool for gaining knowledge, but the tendency of some to exaggerate the test results is not limited to the experimenters themselves--often others, particularly those outside the field, will use certain test results inappropriately, exaggerating the actual test results, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to suit their own prejudical purposes, and THAT IS a fact. We ought to guard ourselves against this, hence my query to you. Message 158 by nator is a good post to reread, as Feynmen's caution applies equally to crashfrog and itrownot alike. Feynmen's principle was clearly more formulated to offer some pretty good advice, it seems, than it was to delineate a scientifically rigorous statement of fact, much like a modern technical version of Shakespeare's "to thine own self be true."Why can't you just admit that, crashfrog? We all step over the line at times and say things imprecisely--or is that just me?

rahvin, please refer to my reply to crashfrog for my comments regarding crashfrog's use of the term "fact". On the contrary, crashfrog is applying the term loosely, if only because he's included the word "always" in his statement. If he has the evidence to back it up his original statement, he hasn't shown it--he's only trying to snow us over with the Asch conformity shuck & jive. It is NOT "always easier to fool yourself"--anyone who has fooled someone at some time or other knows that by simple inspection. Am I being a nitpicker? Of course--that's what we do here in order to understand one another.Edited by itrownot, : Edited for clarityEdited by itrownot, : typo

I never said that it was not.Were you under the impression that I meant you specifically, itrownot, were the easiest person to fool? Like, out of all human beings, you're the most gullible?I hardly believe that. You're the easiest person for you to fool. I'm the easiest person for myself to fool. I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying.I'm simply asking you to accept the results of the Asch conformity experiment, and other experiments, that show that our own personal experiences can't be taken at face value, particularly when they contradict consensus reasoning and science. The easiest person to fool is yourself.

My original statement that undiscernable self-deception is possible and common? Again, the Asch conformity experiment is the evidence. More than one-third of the participants in that trial experienced a visual hallucination simply as a result of other people disagreeing with them.That's a fact. The Asch conformity experiment happened, that's a fact. Self-deception is possible, common, that's a fact. Exactly what are you objecting to being referred to as a "fact"? After all these posts I still don't have an idea.

sorry, crashfrog, but I do understand what you've written quite well. There's nothing personal about it in either direction, but whatever suits the goose, will suit the gander.

I still don't understand what you're objecting to. Can you make an effort to be clearer?

crashfrog, my point to you is rather simple. Reiterating my comment to rahvin (Message 169): It is NOT "always easier to fool yourself"--anyone who has fooled someone at some time or other knows that by simple inspection. Am I being a nitpicker? Of course--that's what we do here in order to understand one another.

To the contrary. Just because it's possible to fool another person doesn't mean that one can't be fooled, oneself.Indeed, when another person tells us something, we usually apply a much greater degree of skepticism than we do to information received from our own senses. Indeed, no amount of external testimony can usually convince us that something we're seeing is false; in the Asch conformity experiment, the brain appears to subconsciously address that disparity by actually changing what is being seen.

itrownot Actually it is aimed precisely at scientific rigour. The quote states
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."It is a single sentence derived from a talk Feynman gave entitled Cargo Cult Science. A website where it can be read in its entirety is located here Gas Resources – gasresources.net

---

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Albert Einstein

You'll find that "common knowledge" and the like are typically wrong. As I said, you you have anything other than your own personal incredulity to back up your assertion? No, you're just poor with logic. Saying "nuh uh! It's really easy to fool other people! Just ask anybody who'se done it!" is an argument from incredulity, and lacks the weight of evidence. Crash posted, as a single example, a study where individuals fooled themselves into believing something completely false, without their own knowledge, and with incredible ease.Do you see the difference? Do you see why Crash get's to use the word "fact," and you get to use the word "anecdote?"

So, if I happen to fool you into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve, then it would have been easier, according to your loosely formulated logic, for me to fool myself into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve. This is in effect what you are saying when you say "ALWAYS easier." Yours was a preposterous statement unless given to be understood within a specific context. That's exactly what I was contending about my past statement concerning my use of the word "empirical"--I was using the term "empirical" more generally as a word and in a particular context, but nobody could accept that. Now you want me to accept your use of the term "fact" outside of its strict meaning as a term.You refuse to admit the obvious mistake, perhaps because it's embarassing for your argument's sake, so you keep dancing around it in a vain effort to justify it. Oh, well.

Sure. To fool me, you actually had to use some kind of physical device or surreptitious physical contact to simulate the sensation of a spider on my arm.To fool yourself, all your brain had to do was imagine it happening. You can't get into my brain and make it supply false sensations, but you can certainly make your own do it. It's what's going on every night when you dream. It's what's going on in Pentecostal churches. It's what's going on during hypnosis. (It's why you can't hypnotize the unwilling.) I've defended my statement, Itrow. People are skeptical of other people's reported experiences in a way they're not about their own sensory experiences. "Seeing is believing." The problem is when you see things that aren't there, and it's a lot easier to get yourself to see something that isn't there than it is to get someone else to do it.And the evidence of psychology defends this view. Hell, the great lengths that religion has gone to in the past to enforce conversion among the unwilling defends this view. I still don't understand what you think is a mistake. I suspect you're harping on this point to conceal your abject failure to defend your own "evidence" for the existence of God, the evidence that was supposedly so convincing but, yet, completely failed to materialize. Funny, that.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No, his was an accurate statement. As an example of people fooling themselves outside of religion, take a look at clouds. People "See" things in the all the time...but they aren't really there. Our brains are hardwired to detect patterns - often patterns that don't actually exist.Saying Crash's statement was "preposterous" is yet again an argument from incredulity. His use of the word "always" was merited - self-delusion happens every day. It doesn't take effort to delude oneself - rather, it takes a LOT of effort to critically examine one's own views and perceptions to avoid self-deception. Except you're still wrong. And Crash is still right. You used the word "empirical" incorrectly. Crash did not use the word "fact" incorrectly. Odd. I was going to say something along those lines to you.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.