Chaos Magic

[dafydd]

Lets cal lit "Edutainment"!

In your case we can forget the edu.

 

[dlorde]

The current trend seems to be more like "I'll make a claim, then smugly insult everyone who questions it, and once this has gone on long enough, I will reveal that this was all a big social experiment, and you all failed". There is some interesting discussion scattered in between the trolling and the people banging their heads against a wall, though.

I have it on good authority that you are absolutely spot on. Really.

 

[Malerin]

And I'm saying that I wouldn't. If someone were to tell me "It's 4:15", I wouldn't be thinking "Oh, now I know what time it is". I'd be thinking "Now I know what time that guy thinks it is, and since he has a watch, I'm pretty sure he's right".

Presumably he has a watch. Otherwise there's no point in asking him the time. So the evidence in favor of his given time being roughly correct is right there.

No, not really. You just know that you have a reason to believe them, or you wouldn't be asking. Again, it isn't that the anecdote is the evidence on its own. It's that the anecdote has easily-available supporting evidence.

On the contrary. Everyone here recognizes the possibility that she could be correct. We just don't see any reason to believe it.



We don't automatically jump to "Oh, she's wrong". We jump to "without any supporting evidence, there's no reason to believe that she's right". There's a big difference.



Evidence?



Burden of proof fallacy.

Also a straw man. I didn't say that it was definitely impossible. I just said that it wasn't known to be possible, which is perfectly true. That means that trusting that this is an accurate account of an out-of-body experience requires two baseless assumptions: the first that the account is correct, and the second that out-of-body experiences are possible.



Yes.



No. I would place the probability of her account being an accurate account of a true out-of-body experience at somewhere well below one percent. Without any evidence supporting the possibility of such an event, or the truth of the account itself, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it may be true except for the fact that I can't prove it to be false.



Neither of which are without any supporting evidence. In the former example, presumably I am asking someone who is from around there, and I know that most locals know the area where they live fairly well, and most people don't lie for no reason. In the latter, the man presumably has a watch.



This falls under the other case, wherein an anecdote counts as evidence in a situation where the anecdote is the thing being examined.



We know pain exists, we know that people don't come into a doctor's office for no reason, and we know that the patient is probably going to give an accurate account because they want the pain to stop.



We know shooting stars exist, we know it's night, and we know that shooting stars occasionally show up in this area.



Africa exists, most people don't lie, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is getting silly.



No, we don't. We accept it because we already have the supporting evidence. It's right there, so obvious that we don't even think about it. In any of the above cases, are we one hundred percent certain that the person is telling the truth? No. Are we reasonably certain? Yes, because of the above evidence.



And the vast majority of it I consider rather unreliable. The rest falls under the same category as scientific studies: official information which has been checked and re-checked many times by many people.

First, you snipped out the part where I showed how an anecdotal account, absent any other evidence, can change the degree of belief of a proposition. You should have quoted that in your reply. Why didn't you?

I can do a quick Bayesian analysis, if you want to get more formal, but anything that changes a degree of belief in a proposition is evidence. That's what it is to be evidence- evidence confirms or disconfirms a belief. This includes, of course, anecdotal information (with or without other corroborating evidence).

And you're not understanding burden of proof. Asserting the possibile truth of a logically consistent proposition does NOT require any evidence. All logically consistent propositions are true in at least one possible world. The burden of proof always rests on those who claim a proposition is impossible. For example, I don't have to provide a shred of evidence that it's possible a three armed alien named Sam lives in the Andromeda galaxy. Merely by uttering a logically consistent proposition, I establish it's possible truth. You, on the other hand, would need to provide evidence that Sam does not exist.

To tie this back to the case at hand, the nurse's account, logically consistent as it is, is possibly true. Note that that is a much different claim than stating it is actually true, which I have never claimed. If you'll recall, someone asked for evidence of veridical supernatural accounts in scientific studies. I provided an anecdote of a veridical OBE that appeared in a scientific study. Anecdotes are evidence, so I successfully answered the challenge. The account may not be actually true, but it is possibly true, and will remain that way until you (A) show it is logically inconsistent or (B) show that veridical OBE's are impossible. Good luck with either of those.

 

[dlorde]

Don't just take our word for it. If anyone is curious about actual facts on the fallibility of memory here are some good links to read.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2193/study-shows-memory-surprisingly-unreliable

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

.
If you liked those, you'll like this: How Much of Your Memory is True? and this: 7 Sins of Memory: Complete Guide.

And here's one to provide some extraordinary contrast: The Gift of Endless Memory - Superior Autobiographical Memory.

 

[dlorde]

And you're not understanding burden of proof. Asserting the possibile truth of a logically consistent proposition does NOT require any evidence. All logically consistent propositions are true in at least one possible world. The burden of proof always rests on those who claim a proposition is impossible. For example, I don't have to provide a shred of evidence that it's possible a three armed alien named Sam lives in the Andromeda galaxy. Merely by uttering a logically consistent proposition, I establish it's possible truth. You, on the other hand, would need to provide evidence that Sam does not exist.

.
In the post you just quoted, he says:

Also a straw man. I didn't say that it was definitely impossible. I just said that it wasn't known to be possible

Straw man² ?

 

[PixyMisa]

AkuManiMani, if I erred in assuming you were sincere, I apologise unreservedly.

 

[Malerin]

.
In the post you just quoted, he says:
Straw man² ?

Pure Agent said this about the nurse's account:

I just said that it wasn't known to be possible, which is perfectly true.

This is wrong. Anything that isn't logically contradictory is "known to be possible." All Fleems are Quirgs is "known to be possible" so long as it's logically consistent.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pure Agent said this about the nurse's account:

This is wrong. Anything that isn't logically contradictory is "known to be possible." All Fleems are Quirgs is "known to be possible" so long as it's logically consistent.

All giraffes are zebras. Possible or not?

 

[Nonpareil]

First, you snipped out the part where I showed how an anecdotal account, absent any other evidence, can change the degree of belief of a proposition. You should have quoted that in your reply. Why didn't you?

Because it was irrelevant. At least, I thought it was, up until you wrote the following:

I can do a quick Bayesian analysis, if you want to get more formal, but anything that changes a degree of belief in a proposition is evidence.

At which point I realized where you were going wrong.

No. Evidence is something which rationally should change the degree of belief in a proposition.

And you're not understanding burden of proof.

I understand it perfectly.

Asserting the possibile truth of a logically consistent proposition does NOT require any evidence.

Arguably, yes it does, but that's beside the point, as I never said that it did.

The burden of proof always rests on those who claim a proposition is impossible.

I never said it was impossible. You are still strawmanning. Stop it.

Note that that is a much different claim than stating it is actually true, which I have never claimed.

Then you have not made any attempt to present any evidence.

If you'll recall, someone asked for evidence of veridical supernatural accounts in scientific studies. I provided an anecdote of a veridical OBE that appeared in a scientific study. Anecdotes are evidence, so I successfully answered the challenge.

No, you didn't, because no, they aren't, and the account isn't proven to be veridical in any case. "Veridical" means "true". You haven't proven that the account is true. You have not presented a veridical account.

The account may not be actually true, but it is possibly true, and will remain that way until you (A) show it is logically inconsistent or (B) show that veridical OBE's are impossible. Good luck with either of those.

I haven't attempted to do either of those, because I don't need to do either of those, because I have never argued that either of those are true.

Try to actually read what I say before you reply this time, please.

 

[Malerin]

Because it was irrelevant. At least, I thought it was, up until you wrote the following:



At which point I realized where you were going wrong.

No. Evidence is something which rationally should change the degree of belief in a proposition.

Rationality is always assumed. Nobody would claim evidence should be irrationally interpreted.

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to RATIONALLY conduct lawsuits for clients or to RATIONALLY advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

Didn't change anything, did it?

Then you have not made any attempt to present any evidence

Again, anecdotes ARE evidence.

No, you didn't, because no, they aren't, and the account isn't proven to be veridical in any case. "Veridical" means "true". You haven't proven that the account is true. You have not presented a veridical account.



I haven't attempted to do either of those, because I don't need to do either of those, because I have never argued that either of those are true.

Try to actually read what I say before you reply this time, please.

Reread what I said:

I provided an anecdote of a veridical OBE that appeared in a scientific study. Anecdotes are evidence, so I successfully answered the challenge.

An anecdotal account of a veridical OBE /= a veridical OBE.

Since anecdotes are evidence, I provided evidence of a veridical OBE.

But this is just a semantics game now, and you're not a very good player, so cya in another discussion, maybe.

 

[Robin]

This is wrong. Anything that isn't logically contradictory is "known to be possible." All Fleems are Quirgs is "known to be possible" so long as it's logically consistent.

But you are confusing a well formed formula with a logically consistent expression.

"All Fleems are Quirg" is possible just so long as it is possible that all Fleems can be Quirgs.

If a Quirg was an infant Fleem and Fleems could only breed at maturity then there would be no possible world where all Fleems are Quigs.

 

[Malerin]

All giraffes are zebras. Possible or not?

Not possible by definition. X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis. A zebra is not Giraffa camelopardalis, therefore a zebra is not a giraffe.

Pixy, are you dodging me on the other thread?

 

[Robin]

Or to put it another way, if possible non-Quirgness was an intrinsic property of Fleemness in only one possible world then there would be no possible world in which all Fleems are Quirgs

 

[Robin]

Not possible by definition

So logical possibility depends upon the definition of your terms?

Then how can you assert the logical possibility of a relation between two undefined terms?

 

[Malerin]

But you are confusing a well formed formula with a logically consistent expression.

"All Fleems are Quirg" is possible just so long as it is possible that all Fleems can be Quirgs.

If a Quirg was an infant Fleem and Fleems could only breed at maturity then there would be no possible world where all Fleems are Quigs.

Hence my "logically consistent" qualifier. If Quirg was "married man" and "Fleem" was "bachelor", all fleems are quirgs would, of course, be false.

 

[Robin]

Rationality is always assumed. Nobody would claim evidence should be irrationally interpreted.

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to RATIONALLY conduct lawsuits for clients or to RATIONALLY advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

Didn't change anything, did it?

You mean apart from excluding 80% of lawyers?

 

[Robin]

Hence my "logically consistent" qualifier. If Quirg was "married man" and "Fleem" was "bachelor", all fleems are quirgs would, of course, be false.

So what you are saying is that anything that is known to be possible is known to be possible?

 

[Robin]

Let's plug that into your original claim:

Asserting the possibile truth of a logically consistent proposition does NOT require any evidence. ​

... but asserting that the proposition is logically consistent does require evidence.

 

[Malerin]

So logical possibility depends upon the definition of your terms?

Sometimes. Are bachelors ever married men?

Then how can you assert the logical possibility of a relation between two undefined terms?

Good question. I would say because it's impossible to assert the logical impossibility of a relation between two undefined terms.

 

[Robin]

Not possible by definition. X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis. A zebra is not Giraffa camelopardalis, therefore a zebra is not a giraffe.

On the other hand:

X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis.
All zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
therefore all zebras are giraffes.

Is logically consistent isn't it?