How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[quarky]

Which is funny, because it's actually wrong more often than not.

There's some irony for you.
If some one could 'intuit' a coin toss, and be wrong more often than right, predictably; statisticly...they'd be on to something wooish.

 

[Belz...]

For coin tosses, yes, but most situations have more than two possible outcomes, and "intuiting" their result will be wrong more often than not.

 

[quarky]

For coin tosses, yes, but most situations have more than two possible outcomes, and "intuiting" their result will be wrong more often than not.

Right you are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't keep us in suspense! What, specifically, are you recommending be done to prove or disprove synchronicity?

I call shenaningans! You were the one claiming we should "investigate" alleged incidents of synchronicity. I've been asking you how you propose to do that for some time.

I noted that the only question you ask is, "What are the odds against that?" And that you reject the answer, "The odds are the same as any other insignificant low-probability outcome."

So again, how do you distinguish synchronicity from mere coincidence? We can't possible "investigate" this claim if you won't even say what the claim is. If it's indistinguishable, then I agree we can't disprove it. (Nor can you prove it.) Just as you can't disprove mimetoglamjabberism (which as I've said is something other than synchronicity or mere coincidence, but it looks just like mere coincidence as well).

Linda is stressing that the "synchronicity" explanation is not necessary. I'll go further than that, since you can't say what distinguishes it from mere coincidence, it's not even an explanation. (It's not even formulated like an explanation even of the "Goddidit" type. In fact, I think it's formulated to look like something not supernatural that slyly invokes the supernatural in a New-Agey sort of way.)

ETA: If your point is that synchronicity is not a falsifiable hypothesis, I would agree. So is it reasonable or unreasonable to reject unfalsifiable claims?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My dictionary* defines Synchronicity as; "a coincidence of simultaneous but unrelated events which looks so neat that Rodney simply can't believe it's a coincidence at all". Hmm - can we work with that definition?

*On reflection, this may be a lie.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My dictionary* defines Synchronicity as; "a coincidence of simultaneous but unrelated events which looks so neat that Rodney simply can't believe it's a coincidence at all". Hmm - can we work with that definition?

*On reflection, this may be a lie.

Seriously, though, Rodney sort of tried something like that. He tried out the idea that it's synchronicity only if the event is considered by someone to be meaningful or significant, but he rejected that when he realized how absurd that would be (it argues that there is in fact no inherent meaning or significance to such events, so it's simply apophenia, which is pretty much the same thing as saying there is no such thing as synchronicity).

He hasn't admitted that he's wrong on the other count, that it's low-probability that makes an event synchronicity, even though he somehow distinguishes low probability events that are merely coincidence from others which are synchronicity.

I sure wish he would say how he makes that distinction.

 

[Dr H]

37!?!

I once had a roommate who owned one.

 

[Dr H]

Assuming such a marker could be found, that would only be able to prove the existence of syncronicity (if it exists), not to disprove it (if it does not).

The basic definition I usually see for "synchronicity" is "events that appear to be merely coincidental which are actually causally connected."

In the absense of a more specific definition of the term, I don't see how there could possibly be such a marker. If events can be shown to be causally connected, then they are not merely coincidental by definition. And whether causally connected events appear to be merely coincidental is going to be in the eye of the beholder -- completely subjective.

You could maybe demonstrate that a collection of coincidental events are not synchronistic, by showing that there is no possible causal connection between them, but going the other way seems impossible without question-begging.

 

[Prometheus]

The basic definition I usually see for "synchronicity" is "events that appear to be merely coincidental which are actually causally connected."

In the absense of a more specific definition of the term, I don't see how there could possibly be such a marker. If events can be shown to be causally connected, then they are not merely coincidental by definition. And whether causally connected events appear to be merely coincidental is going to be in the eye of the beholder -- completely subjective.

You could maybe demonstrate that a collection of coincidental events are not synchronistic, by showing that there is no possible causal connection between them, but going the other way seems impossible without question-begging.

That's a good point. I usually see it defined merely as 'meaningful coincidence' with the assumption being that the meaning is something external. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that if there is any external meaning being communicated, then that entails a causal connection and hence no 'coincidence' at all. The whole concept of synchronicity is just an exercise in circular reasoning!

 

[Dr Adequate]

It does seem a bit circular. Synchronicity is more or less defined (when one looks at the usage of the word) as that force which causes things that look like they're coincidences but aren't really, 'cos they're caused by synchronicity.

However, one might test for this effect. Take a couple of people (let's say a pair of identical twins, since there are a number of anecdotes suggesting synchronicity between such people) and get them to make repeated simultaneous coin tosses. By chance alone, we expect the coins to come down the same way 50% of the time. Any statistically significant excess over that might be called an example of synchronization, even if we don't know what this underlying force of "synchronicity" is.

However, the people who tout synchronicity don't do this. Instead, they produce a set of anecdotes where we have no way of calculating whether there is any excess of apparent coincidences over the number of coincidences we should expect to be produced by chance. Their data set is chosen (indeed, cherry-picked) in such a way as to make their hypothesis untestable with reference to their data.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The basic definition I usually see for "synchronicity" is "events that appear to be merely coincidental which are actually causally connected."

The problem is that people who believe in synchronocity claim it's an alternative to mere coincidence as an explanation, but they claim it is acausal.

As I say, I think they're trying to imply a cause ("harmony with the vibrations of the universe" or some such rot), but they're being evasive. Just denying that it's mere coincidence, IMO, is tantamount to claiming a causal connection, but they deny that. (See Rodney's citation of Jung's definition earlier in the thread.)

That's why I've been asking what the distinction is between synchronicity and mere coincidence and why "synchronicity" is thought to be more valid than "mimetoglamjabberism" (a word I made up to refer to something other than synchronicity that is also indistinguishable from mere coincidence).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The whole concept of synchronicity is just an exercise in circular reasoning!

It does seem a bit circular. Synchronicity is more or less defined (when one looks at the usage of the word) as that force which causes things that look like they're coincidences but aren't really, 'cos they're caused by synchronicity.

I think it's more pure evasiveness or contradictory logic than circular reasoning (since they will deny causal connection but still insist that it's not mere coincidence).

 

[Lusikka]

In fact, since those things aren't happening by power of the mind, there's no psi-phenomena either!

You are right, of course. But my avatar shows a strong soup spoon that was bent by power of mind. At least the 9-year old boy wanted it to bend, just as we four-five spectators wanted to see the spoon bending. And that happened, in ten minutes, when the boy had the bowl of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his left hand and he had the shaft of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his right hand. And you are certain that he was able to cheat so that we did not notice it? There was also an 8-year old boy doing the same trick successfully, at will.

Really, if you can demonstrate PK or ESP in controlled conditions, you could easily win the Million Dollar Challenge.

Yes, I know, but unfortunately I am not able to do that. Anybody I know is not able to do that either.

But no one can, because those things don't exist.

How can you be so sure?

I understand your point, though--if they exist, they would be causal rather than acausal as is supposedly the case with synchronicity. In that sense, synchronicity is still a slippery and undefined thing.

If it's acausal in the sense that we don't have an agent intending for a low probability event to happen, then you're faced with the other question that Rodney cannot or will not answer: how do you distinguish an example of synchronicity from mere coincidence?

Fine, you understood my point. I am not so bright in my English.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

<snip: anecdote of an amazing spoon bending> And you are certain that he was able to cheat so that we did not notice it?

I am certain nobody has bent a spoon by "psi power". I have no opinion about an anecdote I didn't see.

There was also an 8-year old boy doing the same trick successfully, at will.

That's a lie and it directly contradicts what you say next:

Yes, I know, but unfortunately I am not able to do that. Anybody I know is not able to do that either.

So either the 8 year old can or can't do it at will. One way or the other, you're telling a fib.

How can you be so sure?

Because all available evidence points me to the conclusion that PK and ESP do not exist. I hold this conclusion provisionally. If you can show me compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to revise my conclusion. (Please note that the compelling evidence has to outweigh the preponderance of accumulated evidence to date. Since such evidence would call into question a great many generally accepted truths in several fields of science, it would have to be. . .extraordinary!)

Fine, you understood my point. I am not so bright in my English.

Your English is not a problem. I just agreed with you that PSI phenomena, if real, would be causal whereas the claim of "synchronicity" is that it is acausal. The problem with PSI phenomena is a lack of evidence; the problem with synchronicity is a logical problem. That is, if synchronicity is defined as an explanation for something that is acausal but is not mere coincidence, then the idea is self-contradictory.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are right, of course. But my avatar shows a strong soup spoon that was bent by power of mind. At least the 9-year old boy wanted it to bend, just as we four-five spectators wanted to see the spoon bending. And that happened, in ten minutes, when the boy had the bowl of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his left hand and he had the shaft of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his right hand. And you are certain that he was able to cheat so that we did not notice it? There was also an 8-year old boy doing the same trick successfully, at will.

Have you read about the "Superminds" fiasco? Children have successfully tricked highly intelligent adults into thinking that they had such powers. The fact that they were hoaxing the investigating scientists was revealed only by the use of hidden cameras.

 

[Rodney]

I call shenaningans! You were the one claiming we should "investigate" alleged incidents of synchronicity. I've been asking you how you propose to do that for some time.

Please review post #472 on this thread. I had previously asked Linda: "So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?" To which, in that post, she began by responding "Yes."

I'm still waiting for her to explain what she has in mind.

 

[Prometheus]

Have you read about the "Superminds" fiasco? Children have successfully tricked highly intelligent adults into thinking that they had such powers. The fact that they were hoaxing the investigating scientists was revealed only by the use of hidden cameras.

I'm not familiar with that one; got a link?

 

[Belz...]

You are right, of course. But my avatar shows a strong soup spoon that was bent by power of mind. At least the 9-year old boy wanted it to bend, just as we four-five spectators wanted to see the spoon bending. And that happened, in ten minutes, when the boy had the bowl of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his left hand and he had the shaft of the spoon between the tips of thumb and index finger of his right hand. And you are certain that he was able to cheat so that we did not notice it? There was also an 8-year old boy doing the same trick successfully, at will.

It's unfortunate that these people don't choose to bend something more useful. Bending spoons, psi or otherwise, is not very impressive.

Of course there is no psi, but there.

How can you be so sure?

Because at some point rational people have to recognise failure as meaning that the damn thing don't work.

 

[Moochie]

I'm not familiar with that one; got a link?

Seconded. Thanks in advance.


M.

 

[Lusikka]

Have you read about the "Superminds" fiasco? Children have successfully tricked highly intelligent adults into thinking that they had such powers. The fact that they were hoaxing the investigating scientists was revealed only by the use of hidden cameras.

Yes, I have the book on my bookshelf. You have interpreted the Taylor case a little wrong. He was not any bright experimenter and because of his gullibility he did not have controls enough stringent. He changed his mind because he thought in the beginning that the mechanism of the bendings was electromagnetic. When it was not so he became utterly disappointed. Martin Gardner has written disinformation about the case.