Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 129 of 237 (532474)
10-23-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Maths and Reality
Is String Theory true?
Probably not. At least not exactly.
It has a lot of math to support it, but is it true?
Blackholes. Anti-matter. Arguably the entirety of relativity was discovered mathematically. And then experimentally verified.
Are mathematical models definitely true reflections of reality? No of course not. Have they proved themselves as valuable tools for uncovering the nature of reality? Yes. Undeniably.
What is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 2:43 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 130 of 237 (532478)
10-23-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Perdition
10-23-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Understood. As others have pointed out, the methods of the study are off topic, the conclusion of vaguely defined, pseudoscientific "morphic fields" is more in line with the topic, so I'll bow out here as well.
I know that EvC is a very topic defined forum and that moderation is the key to good debate here. However I also feel that there are those who abuse the "off-topic" declaration as a means to an end. Off-topic is all too often cited as a reason to deny points or invalidate arguments which are wholly legitimate in the context of the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 2:48 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 3:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 133 of 237 (532482)
10-23-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 3:17 PM


Re: Maths and Reality
I don't dismiss anything out of hand and I made fun of nothing. If you want to accuse me of such practises please quote me.
More than mathematical models, experimental verification, or observational data, is needed. Science explains reality; reality does not bend to the dictates of science.
Well exactly. And I have proposed something different where?
Izanagi you seem intent on an argument where there is none to be had. Feel free to quote me otherwise.
Edited by Straggler, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 3:17 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 148 of 237 (532509)
10-23-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Perdition
10-23-2009 3:43 PM


"Off Topic" As A Debating Tactic
As I understand it, the topic was started with the intention of discussing pseudoscientific explanations for things, such as "morphic fields" or "quantum chanelling" that use scientific language to say exactly nothing of substance while sounding like they explain everything.
I probably shouldn't have gotten into discussion with Linda about the methodology of the Jaytee experiment in the first place, and with her saying she needed time off, it seemed like the perfect time for me to bow out as well and let the discussion of the actual topic continue.
Yeah that is fine. Quantum bullshit is definitely ultimately the topic here. Particularly with regard to paranormal claims. But exploration of the experimental basis of any given paranormal claim under question is both fine and to be expected as far as I am concerned.
Basically I am sick of those who relentlessly use "off-topic" as a debating tactic rather than a means of focussing legitimate debate. Short of administrative interference I have seen no need for any claims of off-topicness in this thread no matter how much some may wish to use that excuse to evade legitimate lines of questioning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 3:43 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 237 (532517)
10-23-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Perdition
10-23-2009 6:07 PM


Re: "Off Topic" As A Debating Tactic
I understand, it gets quite annoying when someone accuses you of being off topic, but since I did it to myself, I'm ok with it.
Fair play.
Mine was just a general comment and a plea to those, such as youself, who might be deflected from legitimate lines of questioning by the relentless use of "off-topic" as a diversion tactic. As has been the case all too often in recent threads and has been attempted in this thread too. Stick to your guns and don't take that as an excuse from those seeking to evade is my advice. Let the admins, not those under interrogation, decide what is and is not on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 6:07 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 155 of 237 (532518)
10-23-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 6:13 PM


Sheldrake and Quantum Quackery - Again
I don't know enough about Sheldrake to make a decision on him, but I do know there are people out there who are exactly as you describe - using science for their own benefit with no thought to how science actually works.
Sheldrake uses various outlets to publicise himself including those linked to in this post which explores his (undetectable and thus inherently irrefutable) morphic fields "hypothesis".
Message 66
This guy is abusing terminology to sell books to the lay public as science when in fact he is selling supernatural mysticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 6:13 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 158 of 237 (532522)
10-23-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 6:46 PM


Evidenced Possibility?
What do you think is meant by the term "evidenced possibility"?
Does evidence in favour of the phenomenon under consideration (e.g. telepathy) in itself provide evidence for the proposed explanation for said phenomeon (e.g. morphic fields)?
Are morphic fields an evidenced possibilty? Is the existence of dark matter an evidenced posibility? Was anti-matter an evidenced possibility at the point that it was mathematically predicted but experimentally unverified? Are black holes an evidenced possibilty? What is the evidence for black holes and was this phenomenon evidenced as a possibility before any direct observational evidence existed?
Do you see what I am getting at here or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 6:46 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 237 (532529)
10-23-2009 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 7:03 PM


The Scientific Conspiracy?
Taking a look at his website, and assuming he does sell books....
He does. Lots of them. And full of pseudoscientific bullshit that impresses the public by telling them what they want to hear in mystical technobabble they are too:
A new Science of Life
The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature
Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home
The Sense of Being Stared At
Seven Experiments That Could Change The World
But apparently he uses the internet to conduct his research, which seems a bit lazy and unscientific to me. So I would agree with you that Sheldrake seems less than serious about bringing the paranormal into the normal and has likely capitalized on his New Age fame.
His whole thing seems to be to take science to the masses by making people think that their anecdotes and wishful thinking are as valid as the closed minded experiments conducted by the biased scientific elite. His books and internet "research" are prime examples of this thinking.
In effect a million claims of telepthic dogs is worth more than a single double blind randomised trial. I mean that many people cannot be deluded or wrong can they? How dare scientists dismiss this overwhelming pool of evidence just to sustain their empire of exclusivity and knowledge.
You might as well ask people if their babies are cute as ask people to objectively assess whether or not their pets are "special".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:03 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:32 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 168 of 237 (532533)
10-23-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 7:15 PM


Re: Evidenced Possibility?
String Theory and MWI I am a little more skeptical of since I haven't read anything about evidence that directly supports those theories (although there was an interesting article I happened upon that said M-Theory could explain something about the Quantum-Critical State, which suggests to me that M-Theory might be falsifiable in the future).
These are mathematical conjectures. Not physical evidence of anything in themselves as such. But extrapolations of models that (to the best of our knowledge) work. However we have made major discoveries on exactly this basis before so these methods of prediction and discovery have "form".
In effect our models are based on reality and the extrapolation of these models provides us with possibilities that may or may not turn out to be further features of reality. Ultimately only experiment will tell. But these possibilities are objectively evidenced in the sense that they are directly and logically derived from the facts of reality as we know it to be.
And I am very skeptical of Sheldrake's explanation of morphic fields, because its vague and unfalsifiable
Morphic fields are no more derived from reality than is the proposition that immaterial goblins teleport around whispering information into the psychic ears of Sheldrake's test subjects. They are an ad-hoc pseudoscientific explanation. The only evidence for morphic fields is the phenomenon it seeks to explain. And that is a blatantly circular argument.
That said, if there is evidence for telepathy, then I think the phenomenon itself should be looked into and naturalistic explanations conceived.
Yes. But let no-one conflate the phenomenon under investigation and the irrefutable explanation for said phenomenon (i.e. morphic fields) such that one circularly becomes evidence for the other.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:15 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 172 of 237 (532537)
10-23-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 7:32 PM


Re: The Scientific Conspiracy?
Well, I'm assuming we're in agreement about Sheldrake then?
So it seems
Disregarding the moneymakers, can we agree that if the phenomenon of telepathy could be studied under rigorous, scientific methodology and explained naturalistically, then telepathy is at least possible?
Yes. See Message 112.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:32 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 179 of 237 (532545)
10-23-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Kitsune
10-23-2009 1:54 PM


Re: Prediction Vs Post-Hoc Analysis
At least one person seems to be open to some of the evidence here.
Do you at least agree that in subsequent tests Sheldrake should be able to make "blind" predictions about the leaving time of the owner based on the behaviour of the dog alone if his hypothesis is true?
Surely even you can see that this is more objective than simply correlating two sets of data and applying the statistical analysis required to get the desired answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2009 1:54 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:20 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 193 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 7:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 205 of 237 (532782)
10-26-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Kitsune
10-25-2009 7:55 AM


"I Am Open Minded. You Are Closed Minded"
"I am open minded. You are closed minded". This has become something of a mantra for some here at EvC. But what is actually meant by this?
Well for a start it seems to mean that any criticism of ones arguments can be summarily dismissed. Rather than confront the paucity of evidence in favour of specific extraordinary claims or concede the demonstrated weakness of their position the "open minded" contingent simply flounce off shouting "At least I am open minded". As if this provides some sort of moral victory regardless of any other argument. But aside from this self congratulatory and self deceiving method of denying evidential reality is there anything else that underlies the "I am open minded" mantra?
Scratch beneath the surface and I think the root of this self proclaimed open mindedness amounts to the following: "There must be something here. Not everyone can be lying. Not everyone can be wrong. Not everyone is deluded. You cannot just dismiss the inconvenient experiences of so many of us as irrelevant and untrue". This is definitely the angle from which Sheldrake approaches these issues. From multiple past conversations with our "open minded" contingent here at EvC there can be little doubt that they too take a similar approach to anecdotal or subjective "evidence" as applied to the supernatural or paranormal.
Sheldrake writes:
For me, the most persuasive and important evidence is the fact that so many people believe they’ve actually had telepathic experiences. Most people, indeed, according to surveys in Britain, Europe, America and all round the world, believe they’ve had these experiences. Now, some might say, and in fact Lewis Wolpert would say, that this is, in fact, an illusion, that they have been coincidences and they’ve wrongly believed these to be telepathic. Tricks of memory, forgetting when they’re wrong, only remembering when they’re right and so forth, but the fact is millions, hundreds of millions, in fact, billions of perfectly normal, rational people, believe that they’ve had these experiences. Can they all be wrong and so easily deluded? Secondly, there have been many collections of case histories, stories of peoples’ telepathic experiences. These are generally dismissed, in their entirety, as being anecdotal. Sheldrake Wolpert Debate
There are a number of problems with this argument. The main problem is that it is a very evidenced possibility that so many people can in fact be entirely wrong. The human mind is demonstrably and collectively fallible with regard to such beliefs. The second problem is one of consistency. There are numerous beliefs held by a great many people that the proponents of open mindedness are perfectly happy to treat as completely untrue to all practical intents and purposes. The third problem is circularity of argument. Effectively citing belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief.
Those here who claim to be "open minded" are not open minded at all. Quite the opposite in fact. They have a preconceived paradigm that includes somethingsupernatural and they resist any evidence based challenge to this with the mantra "You are closed minded". Meanwhile they seek to shoehorn the supernatural into whatever gap they think science has left open. Whether it is telepathic dogs, prophetic parrots or ethereal morphic fields of information unhindered by time or space the answer is the same. Somethingsupernaturaldidit. It may be dressed up in the language of physics, in particular the sort of quantum quackery beloved of fraudsters like Sheldrake and his pseudoscientific allies. But ultimately it is no different as an answer to Goddidit. Somethingsupernatural of the gaps is no more valid than the God of the gaps argument it so closely resembles.
So the next time someone here recites the mantra "I am open minded. You are closed minded" ask yourself this: Are they genuinely open minded? Or is that mantra just a method of disguising paucity of argument and underlying unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of evidence as well as deep seated unshakeable beliefs about the existence of "the unknowable"? All encapsulated in a self congratulatory phrase that gives the false veneer of intellectual superiority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 7:55 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 207 of 237 (532807)
10-26-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Kitsune
10-25-2009 6:56 PM


Teach The Controversy?
The more trials that occur, the more the statistics ought to average out to pure chance. Are almost 5 million trial guesses not enough for you? I can cite other paranormal experiments besides these where the results were consistently above chance statistically: not equalling chance and not below. Then there's the "Dogs that Know" experiments: in Wiseman's trials, Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time when Pam was not coming home, and 78% of the time when she was. Yet in the experiments where she came home late (after the 4-hour videotaped time period) or not at all, the results agreed with the null hypothesis that Jaytee would be at the window the same amount of time during all the time periods.
So telepthay is overwhelmingly evidenced but there is a huge conspiracy underway to suppress this fact.
It's clear to me, and probably anyone else reading this, that you have gone Straggler's route of denial and bluster.
Are you going to tell us we should teach the controvesy next?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 6:56 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 208 of 237 (532815)
10-26-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Prediction Vs Post-Hoc Analysis
So yes, predictive quality is important
When I was a teacher I used to occasionally do an exercise with my classes. We would take a random and far out claim and discuss how it could be tested scientifically if money, resource etc. etc. were not an issue. Whilst telepthic dogs never came up it is exactly the sort of thing that could easily have arisen.
The kids soon got the idea of control groups, eliminating false positives and the need for specific predicted results measured against actual experimental data as opposed to post-hoc interpreted results or generalised predictions of the "I predict my hypothesis will be proved right" type.
I seriously reckon that some of my kids would have picked holes as large as craters in Sheldrake's dog experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:20 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 214 of 237 (532948)
10-27-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Kitsune
10-27-2009 9:15 AM


Should We Teach Telepathy in Schools?
5 million trials you have stated. And the evidence is undeniable. So you have said. So should we teach telepthay as a real and objectively evidenced phenomenon in schools?
LindaLou writes:
It seems to me that the details are very important. Sheldrake took care to make sure that there were sufficient controls in place to rule out natural explanations.
You raised the telepthic dog experiment. I responded with my criticisms in Message 105. Instead of responding to my criticisms or suggestions you completely ignored everything I said and started a pre-prepared rant about this Wiseman guy. But in doing so you succeeded in making exactly the point I was arguing.
As far as I can see the main reason that Wiseman and Sheldrake ended up waving their dicks at each other in a "My interpretation is better than yours" shake-off over (apparently) the same data is because the design of the experiment makes this inevitable. Rather than applying the proposed causal relationship under investigation to take one set of the data (e.g. the behaviour of the dog) and predict the other (i.e. the time the owner set off home) a pile of data was simply collected and then criteria and statistics applied post-hoc to achieve whatever result the researcher in question wanted to claim.
My point is that I have taught fourteen year olds who could pick holes in this experimental methodology. So to claim that it provides a sound evidential basis for claiming the validity of something as contentious and extraordinary as telepathic dogs is just ridiculous.
Interestingly, like others here, he seems keen to preserve this belief by ignoring evidence to the contrary.
So you are utterly convinced that telepathy is a an objectively evidenced phenomenon. Would you have us teach kids that telepathy is real and scientifically verified? Would you have us teach Sheldrake's morphic field hypothesis in schools? Teach the controversy?
To what extent do you deem telepathy to be an established fact? And why do you think that the vast majority of scientists continue to disagree with you? Is there a great conspiracy to supress the evidence? No doubt just like IDists you consider such things to be on the verge of making the mainstream. The dam of denial will break and the scientific elite will flung aside as the truth floods forth. The truth of the immaterial and spiritual is nearly upon us! Hallelujah!
Not only are you invoking a somethingsupernatural of the gaps answer here. You are inventing non-existant gaps to fill.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Kitsune, posted 10-27-2009 9:15 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024