Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

If you know somebody personally and have learned that you can trust somebody, then it is safe to believe people's anecdotes. That doesn't mean they are 100% true, though.

If I don't trust someone and they tell me they had a chicken sandwich for lunch, I'll accept that at face value.
If I do trust someone and they tell me they had a dodo sandwich for lunch, I'll reject that at face value.

 

[Zanders]

And the goalposts keep moving. So now anecdotal information without accompanying evidence is OK as long as it's mundane? How do you determine whether something is mundane or not?

Well, if I told you I saw a bear it would be easy to believe that I saw a bear. If there are bears around where I am, and you have seen and know bears exist, that's pretty likely. If I say I saw a dragon fly in to the woods and crash in to a tree, dragons are not common, and I'm pretty nobody has seen a real life dragon. Which anecdote is more believable?

 

[PixyMisa]

And since when is a jury required to be perfectly rational?

Actually, when the evidence is inconclusive and conflicting, you'd normally acquit. (In British-derived legal systems, anyway.)

That's how all 12 of us saw it the one time I was directly involved in the process.

 

[Malerin]

And yet these anecdotes must be recorded and evaluated in a systematic way that yields verifiable, repeatable results and conclusions about the hypothesis.



Correction: they are evidence if and only if

- the hypothesis deals directly with the anecdotes themselves or
- they are supported by other evidence.



You draw this conclusion how, exactly? The paper gives absolutely no indication as to the thoughts of the researchers on the nurse's anecdote. It is simply included. You are speculating without basis.

Unless they're extremely poor researchers (or out and out dishonest), they wouldn't include an anecdotal account from a person they thought was lying. This is true of any study that depends on anecdotal accounts.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ultimately, yes. Very small amounts of faith, but yes. Your point? I am willing to make the leap of faith to say that the scientific community at large is not lying through their collective teeth about the results of their studies. I am not willing to make the - rather larger - leap to say that this nurse is not only not lying but recalls the event with one hundred percent accuracy.

The think about science is that it can vaporise a city. I'm not going to argue.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, if I told you I saw a bear it would be easy to believe that I saw a bear. If there are bears around where I am, and you have seen and know bears exist, that's pretty likely. If I say I saw a dragon fly in to the woods and crash in to a tree, dragons are not common, and I'm pretty nobody has seen a real life dragon. Which anecdote is more believable?

You're becoming more of a skeptic each passing minute, Zanders.

 

[Nonpareil]

And the goalposts keep moving. So now anecdotal information without accompanying evidence is OK as long as it's mundane?

Actually, no.

You're right; my former position was inconsistent. It got the right answer in the end, but my reasoning to get there was flawed.

Supporting evidence is needed even in "purely mundane" situations. It's just that, in purely mundane situations, the evidence is already at hand.

Going back to the example of my wife telling me she was late due to traffic, I have supporting evidence for her story. I know she drives to and from work, and I know that there are such things as traffic jams, which typically happen around the time when she is coming home. This is enough for me to determine that it is a reasonable conclusion that my wife is telling the truth.

So I actually have to thank you. You've helped me work out one of the kinks in my worldview.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unless they're extremely poor researchers (or out and out dishonest), they wouldn't include an anecdotal account from a person they thought was lying.

Actually, unless they were extremely poor researches (or out-and-out dishonest), they wouldn't leave such an account out. Scientists are supposed to report all data and all findings, not just that which supports their conclusion.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Again, it all boils down to who's word you ultimately trust to vet information that you might otherwise be unable to investigate yourself. Unless you directly observe an event directly for yourself its not a matter if knowledge for you, but an issue of faith.

Ultimately, yes. Very small amounts of faith, but yes. Your point? I am willing to make the leap of faith to say that the scientific community at large is not lying through their collective teeth about the results of their studies. I am not willing to make the - rather larger - leap to say that this nurse is not only not lying but recalls the event with one hundred percent accuracy.

Why do you assume that the accuracy of reports like those of the nurse and the veracity of scientific findings are mutually exclusive? Is there anything we know in science that renders accounts like those given by the nurse logically impossible?

I've never argued for the "paranormal", and I think its a bit silly to speak of their being evidence for or against it. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that people's awareness actually are popping out of their bodies during OBEs, or that there actually are "spirits" acting independently of material brains. Would those phenomena still be "paranormal" if science advanced to the point where it discovered/understood the mechanisms involved?

No. This is where the definition gets rather fuzzy, but I think that, for the sake of discussion, we can agree that spirits and OBEs can be called "paranormal" in a casual sense, simply for lack of better word to describe them at the moment.

Okay.

Lets say that you personally go out an verify some data for yourself but others are not as lucky in their observations. Does that lack of independent verification render what you've experienced invalid, or somehow false? What if its something others find unbelievable or extraordinary?

Yes, actually, it would. If I "verified" something myself, but no one else was able to replicate it, I would think that I had either gotten lucky and ended up on the far end of the bell curve or had somehow screwed up the experiment. I would seek to replicate it. If I could, I would enlist others' help in finding out why I could do it and no one else could. If not, then I would be satisfied that I had screwed up.

But this implicitly assumes that all real phenomena are necessarily regular, repeatable, or conform to theoretical expectation. In such a scenario, what it really comes down to is whether one trusts their direct perception of data over their expectations of how the data should present itself.

I'd amend that to say that all inquiries you personally lend credence to have turned up nothing, been discredited, or proven unrepeatable.

Fair enough. However, bear in mind that I lend credence to them because they are backed by a large number of repeated, verified studies, and unless you want to argue that these studies are all falsified, I really have no reason to retract that trust.

I've been reading up on a lot of contested studies with regard to the "paranormal" and poured over arguments from "both sides", as it were. From where I'm standing, the issue doesn't appear to be as cut and dried and you believe it to be.

 

[carlitos]

 

[Malerin]

Well, if I told you I saw a bear it would be easy to believe that I saw a bear. If there are bears around where I am, and you have seen and know bears exist, that's pretty likely. If I say I saw a dragon fly in to the woods and crash in to a tree, dragons are not common, and I'm pretty nobody has seen a real life dragon. Which anecdote is more believable?

We can give lots of examples, but defining it is hard. Prior to 1996, someone claiming to have seen a Laotian rock rat would have been subjected to the same ridicule: they're not common and nobody had ever seen one. This is true of other Lazarus species too.

But you're right, we tend to readily believe common place occurences and require proof for uncommon occurences. I'm not sure that OBE's would qualify as "uncommon", though. Millions of people have reported having them.

 

[Malerin]

Actually, no.

You're right; my former position was inconsistent. It got the right answer in the end, but my reasoning to get there was flawed.

Supporting evidence is needed even in "purely mundane" situations. It's just that, in purely mundane situations, the evidence is already at hand.

Going back to the example of my wife telling me she was late due to traffic, I have supporting evidence for her story. I know she drives to and from work, and I know that there are such things as traffic jams, which typically happen around the time when she is coming home. This is enough for me to determine that it is a reasonable conclusion that my wife is telling the truth.

So I actually have to thank you. You've helped me work out one of the kinks in my worldview.

You're welcome!

 

[Nonpareil]

Why do you assume that the accuracy of reports like those of the nurse and the veracity of scientific findings are mutually exclusive?

I don't. The nurse's account simply lacks any support.

But this implicitly assumes that all real phenomena are necessarily regular, repeatable, or conform to theoretical expectation. In such a scenario, what it really comes down to is whether one trusts their direct perception of data over their expectations of how the data should present itself.

True. You are entirely free to choose to support your own perception of the event over the lack of evidence supporting that perception. But - and this is the key point - it is not rational to do so. You may be right, but without any evidence to support your perception of the event, there's no way to know that, and the only rational conclusion is that your perception was faulty.

 

[Nonpareil]

You're welcome!

Do you have any objection to the above position? Do you still maintain that anecdotes can be used as evidence on their own, or do you agree with my new position? Or something else entirely (though I don't know what that would be)?

 

[Malerin]

Do you have any objection to the above position? Do you still maintain that anecdotes can be used as evidence on their own, or do you agree with my new position? Or something else entirely (though I don't know what that would be)?

Supporting evidence is needed even in "purely mundane" situations. It's just that, in purely mundane situations, the evidence is already at hand.

Going back to the example of my wife telling me she was late due to traffic, I have supporting evidence for her story. I know she drives to and from work, and I know that there are such things as traffic jams, which typically happen around the time when she is coming home. This is enough for me to determine that it is a reasonable conclusion that my wife is telling the truth.

What supporting evidence do you have when you ask a stranger what time it is, or ask for directions? Do you generally believe such people?

 

[Zanders]

We can give lots of examples, but defining it is hard. Prior to 1996, someone claiming to have seen a Laotian rock rat would have been subjected to the same ridicule: they're not common and nobody had ever seen one. This is true of other Lazarus species too.

But you're right, we tend to readily believe common place occurences and require proof for uncommon occurences. I'm not sure that OBE's would qualify as "uncommon", though. Millions of people have reported having them.

I did not say that the other anecdote has absolutely no value, I just sad it was less reliable and therefor of less value without other evidence. But a species of animals is also less outlandish or far-fetched as spirit beings or souls surviving apart from bodies. Again, I never said they don't exist. I just said they need more scrutiny.

 

[The Norseman]

Well, if millions of people have strikingly similar encounters with them, that should mean a little something.

Well, billions of people have dreams too. Does that mean that dreams are real? Of course, these dream experiences may not be real, but the dreams themselves are fascinating and are fairly extensively studied nonetheless. It's the same thing with out of body experiences, for example.

 

[Nonpareil]

What supporting evidence do you have when you ask a stranger what time it is

My own watch, a general knowledge of what times of day corresponds to what level of lighting and temperature, and (presumably) some idea of how long it's been since a previous known time.

or ask for directions?

Very little. It's largely a leap of faith. I hope that the person isn't going to purposefully screw me over, and I'm not one hundred percent sure that his directions are correct.

Do you generally believe such people?

In the former case, yes. In the latter, I believe that they are generally attempting to help, but I'm not particularly sure that they're actually giving me the right directions.

 

[Zanders]

What supporting evidence do you have when you ask a stranger what time it is, or ask for directions? Do you generally believe such people?

There is no way of knowing for sure if what they are saying is true without checking the time or looking at a map yourself yourself, but there is less reason to lie about what time it is or where you are. Also, the current time or your location is not a far-fetched claim at all that would be hard to confirm.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Why do you assume that the accuracy of reports like those of the nurse and the veracity of scientific findings are mutually exclusive?

I don't. The nurse's account simply lacks any support.

And, I might add, is contrary to what one would expect based upon opinions in common currency within the scientific community. I personally would not discount such anecdotes but I understand your rationale for doing so yourself. Based upon your experience, it's a perfectly reasonable position to take.

But this implicitly assumes that all real phenomena are necessarily regular, repeatable, or conform to theoretical expectation. In such a scenario, what it really comes down to is whether one trusts their direct perception of data over their expectations of how the data should present itself.

True. You are entirely free to choose to support your own perception of the event over the lack of evidence supporting that perception. But - and this is the key point - it is not rational to do so. You may be right, but without any evidence to support your perception of the event, there's no way to know that, and the only rational conclusion is that your perception was faulty.

</nod>

While I think you and I may not exactly see eye-to-eye on what constitutes the plausible, I think that is a perfectly reasonable position.

[BTW, I'd like to add that you're one of the handful of truely rational responders in this thread and it has been a pleasure conversing with you ]