How to explain this fact?

[Loss Leader]

I have other evidence recorded in books.
Does this forum accept this kind of evidence?

We'll all be happy to consider whatever you can provide - books, magazine articles, newspaper clippings, affidavits, or anything else.

But if all you have is a story lifted from a book, expect criticism. All the questions anyone would have for you, we will now have for the author of the book. And since the author isn't here to defend his research, that may pose a problem.

For example, I can easily show you a book that claims that a giant monolith orbiting Jupiter caused a computer to go crazy and kill the crew of the Discovery, except for Dave. Dave then flew into the monolith.

Is the book evidence that this actually happened? Why or why not? That's the challenge you will face.

But, yes, we will all gladly look at this book.

 

[JayUtah]

The first evidence was not accepted.

You provided no evidence. You provided only an anecdote. We asked for evidence, so that we could test various hypotheses related to the anecdote. You refused to provide it.

only I have other.

I'm sure you have many other stories. But if you're going to recite them out of books, then they are clearly not stories for which you will be able or willing to provide the kind of evidence that skeptics need in order to test various hypotheses. Therefore it is unlikely that copy-pasting from books will be a productive avenue of discussion.

You don't seem to understand the difference between anecdotes and evidence. No one is interested in books of mere tales. You were told that the kind of books that would be acceptable here are books that provide scientifically testable evidence. Anecdotes are not that. And your books are likely not that either. Too bad you didn't pay any attention to Loss Leader's post. He gave you a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the difference between an anecdote and evidence. He asked you questions designed to test how well you understood the concept.

Before anyone takes you seriously, you will need to demonstrate that you are capable of parsing the concepts that people discuss in this forum.

but I want to present them in Portuguese, because the book is in Portuguese.
I want to know if this is allowed on this forum?

In general, no. This is an English language forum. You were invited to discuss this in forums in your native language, but you decided instead that you wanted to post here. That means you will need to post in English.. While I'm sure the moderators will indulge you in allowing brief quotes in other languages, we are not going to have the discussion in Portuguese. If you are unable to comprehend what your critics are saying to you in English, and unable to make sufficient replies in English via a translator, then you will not be able to debate effectively here.

 

[8enotto]

The medium is a more than passable artist and drew a picture basing it off of facial features of someone or multiple people in the group.

The shotgun method of using a good introduction and then seeing who takes the bait.

 

[Loss Leader]

the plural of anecdotes is data or evidence

So, all the stories in the entire Future History series by Robert Heinlein are evidence because they're a collection of anecdotes?

All of the fairy tales collected by the Brothers Grimm are now evidence that witches exist because there are more than one of them?

The plural of anecdotes is "several anecdotes."

 

[JayUtah]

But if all you have is a story lifted from a book, expect criticism. All the questions anyone would have for you, we will now have for the author of the book.

Or worse. If the book he refers to is true to type, the author will not have originated the story. Our questions for the author would then revolve to the person who recounted the story to the author, who will be even more undisclosed. This is how such faith-promoting stories work in a religion. Everyone seems to know the stories, but no one can remember where they first started.

For example, I can easily show you a book that claims that a giant monolith orbiting Jupiter...

Saturn. A different version of that story changes that detail. Object lesson here, perhaps?

 

[Cris]

So, all the stories in the entire Future History series by Robert Heinlein are evidence because they're a collection of anecdotes?

All of the fairy tales collected by the Brothers Grimm are now evidence that witches exist because there are more than one of them?

The plural of anecdotes is "several anecdotes."

the problem is the language
error in translation
so you are having a hard time understanding what I wrote
but can I name a small excerpt in the Portuguese language?

 

[BStrong]

How to explain this fact?

Did the deceased have an obit in a newspaper featuring a photo? Was the deceased a crime victim and was their photograph shown in news reports?

ETA - what is the name of the deceased? I'm willing to bet that a simple web search could turn up at least one photo of them, especially if the deceased is under the age of 30.

 

[JayUtah]

the problem is the language
error in translation.

I agree. Machine translation is generally far too clumsy to allow for discussions of complicated subjects like science or philosophy. Since the language barrier is not easily overcome here, I urged you to seek critics who speak your language.

but can I name a small excerpt in the Portuguese language?

On this matter Loss Leader's judgment supersedes my own. As he has said, we will consider anything you choose to provide. But take caution in that consideration simply means we will look at it and judge it critically. We may also ask you additional questions about it. Do not expect your critics simply to read it and interpret it or believe it as you do.

 

[Lithrael]

I’m confused. Are you saying there are books that contain more detailed versions of your anecdote about the medium making a drawing at your house?

If the books just contain other anecdotes you want to discuss, that would go in a new thread, I think.

 

[Butter!]

I hate that cutesy phrase "the plural of anecdote is data." (Yes, I know that Raymond Wolfinger said it. I still don't like it.) In some cases, it's kind of true, but not really. And certainly not in the case of spiritualism. Data (good data, anyway) is strategically collected and often verified. So a bunch of anecdotes is, at best, anecdotal data. There's not a shred of real data supporting mediumship. Not one shred. No medium EVER has passed a controlled test. Believers don't find that odd?

Every thread like this is the same. So repetitive. Blah, blah, blah, twenty years ago a medium drew my brother, so checkmate skeptics! Explain that! Then I'll summarily discard any and all explanations offered, therefore woo exists!

I don't get why so many people seem to want mediums and souls and ghosts and crap to be real, anyway. Think about the awful things that would really mean. Everyone who ever lived is just hovering around on some astral plane, only able to contact the living through vague phrases delivered by annoying old hippy ladies with crystal balls. Your dead relatives can see you all the time, showering, surfing internet porn, farting, telling lies. Yuck! When I'm dead, I'd prefer to finally get some peace, lol.

 

[JayUtah]

In some cases, it's kind of true, but not really.

Right. The ways in which anecdotes contribute to investigation is a perennial topic here. I won't recite it.

And certainly not in the case of spiritualism. Data (good data, anyway) is strategically collected and often verified. So a bunch of anecdotes is, at best, anecdotal data.

A bunch of anecdotes alleging remarkable feats of various kinds is not ever evidence of the one single story dreamed up, and to which they are all attributed with no further discussion. That's circular reasoning at its finest.

There's not a shred of real data supporting mediumship. Not one shred. No medium EVER has passed a controlled test. Believers don't find that odd?

They just speculate that the spirits are shy when scientists are around. Not that they actually know anything about spirits. They just change the hypothesis ad hoc. They have to rely entirely on happenstance successes. Any individual happenstance event is hard to explain to a rational level of rigor. This is because we can't go back and replay the events with additional observers or controls in place. So we have to resort to type, which is a less rigorous degree of confidence. For some reason, the believers demand that any alternative explanation be established to a scientific degree of certainty in order to be credible, even if they have to intentionally withhold evidence in order to assure our failure to meet it. But then their own explanation -- "It was spirits" -- doesn't require a shred of proof. It's the default that holds when skeptics point out that the data are insufficient to test any other hypothesis.

 

[Hellbound]

To be fair:

The plural of anecdote is data, but what does that data support? It only supports the popularity of certain stories...not of the validity of the content of those stories.

 

[Loss Leader]

but can I name a small excerpt in the Portuguese language?

Yes. For the fifth time, yes. Please name the book and/or provide a short excerpt. Stop asking permission and just do it.

 

[Loss Leader]

Saturn.

Yup, Saturn. Why did I think it was Jupiter?

On this matter Loss Leader's judgment supersedes my own. As he has said, we will consider anything you choose to provide.

Please be advised that my judgment is made only as a member and not as a moderator. In substantive threads, I am a mere mortal such as yourself except with a lot less training in engineering.

 

[Pixel42]

Yup, Saturn. Why did I think it was Jupiter?

It's Jupiter in the film, Saturn in the book.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yup, Saturn. Why did I think it was Jupiter?

It was Jupiter in the film, which the book was based on. Thus demonstrating why "It says it in a book" is a poor standard of evidence, because we all know that it only really happened if it was in the movie.

Dave

 

[Joe Random]

I suddenly find myself wistful for the relatively sane and grounded posts by the Dr. Mas collective ...

 

[JayUtah]

Yup, Saturn. Why did I think it was Jupiter?

As others have correctly answered, because Kubrick's film set it at Jupiter, whereas the book places the monolith on Iapetus. The object lesson is that anecdotes change over time, are reported differently by different people, and are generally unreliable sources of fact. Doug Trumbull was not confident he could convincingly depict the rings of Saturn. So Jupiter it is.

Please be advised that my judgment is made only as a member and not as a moderator. In substantive threads, I am a mere mortal such as yourself except with a lot less training in engineering.

Thanks. "Judgment" may have been the wrong word. My statement regarding what is and is not acceptable is based on my limited observation of how I have seen the moderators rule on the topic of how much non-English material is allowed. Regardless of what capacity you're acting in here, I trust that you have been privy to more of those conversations than I, and are better equipped to predict how the moderators will rule on including Portuguese material here. As far as it actually goes, I agree with you that whatever material appears, in whatever language. ought to receive due consideration.

 

[Butter!]

He was a sock.

 

[Loss Leader]

Hardly matters now what evidence anyone might be willing to accept in whichever language. Tonight, pour out a drop for Cris.