$1,000,000 Challenge

[Navigator]

Greetings Dancing David

1. A personal belief that provides some comfort or enjoyment to the believer. (This would cover Santa and religion in general, as well in some of the beliefs of homeopaths, crytal holders, angel believers. pagans like myself, and followers of the psychiatrtic community(that is for WotS).)

So then David....G_D is not a certainty. But you are stating that "comfort and enjoyment" are okay - I agree - because this cannot really do any harm to the human potential right?
After all - those who are comfortable and joyous are more likely to cause positive ripples in their communities and this is great!
Unless the comfort and enjoyment was only periodic, in which case this might not be the fault of that which is believed in, but of the individual themselves...
However, it is not certain that those things you left off this list (Tarot Ouija Runes and the like) do not also provide comfort and enjoyment to many who choise to utelise these devices.
Now we all can varify that the belief in Santa causes comfort and enjoyment? According to some stats, it is a very pressured and depressing time of the year for LOTS of folk.
Also, I dare say that to be told ol' Santa's a made up lie, does not produce much comfort and enjoyment for the kids.
So is this all about maintaining the illusion of comfort and enjoyment at the heafty cost (sacrifice) of truth?



2. A personal belief that is used to the advantage of another person for unethical benefit.

By who's standards or double standards are these 'ethics' identified?
Does someone who believes in God get taken advantage of by religion?

a. This would include people who use religion or paranormal claims to defraud other people.( Taking money to see the future or tarot cards to predict stocks)

Would it be ethical if the predictions proved themselves? How are we to know that this is not what is happening with some who are doing well with the stocks? Would they tell us?
I see that religion recieves money from it's believers, but does this constitute the 'unethical'?



b. This would include people who use thier religous status or other paranormal status to make money or mooch off of other people.(Convincing people to buy stocks or investment and living off of others)

Is living off others unethical? How about those folk who have no ability or compulsion to sort out problems and differences between each other? Are they taken advantage of by Law and Lawyers, who live of the proceeds of others inabilities?
So - those who feel they have no ability to 'commune with God' or understand spiritual matters, or learn to read Tarot (perhaps they have no time or inclination) or any other such skill - they pay someone else to do it for them.
So it really isn't about speaking with God or the dead or spirits or consulting the chicken guts - it is about ETHICS - Making your Money without ripping some other poor ignorant off.
Is this a realistic goal?

c. especialy this applies to people who don't get medical treatment because of a mistaken belief.(Like when a Christian Scientist refuses thier children medical treatment.)

Or like a "__________" who teaches their Children that there is this Big Jolly Guy up north.......
maybe the crux of the matter is that some people don't trust their kids with science (there are those unscupulous doctors and drug manufactors around - being lawfully unethical perhaps.)

So while teaching children the santat myth has certain ramifications , it does not violate a bunch of ethical concerns.

Ethical concerns? Who's? Would it be fair to say that Ethics are things which are created because it has been noted that some things cause stress and ripple effects which effect negatively other things which are not directly related to the cause of the stress etc...
For example - at one time incestual interbreeding may have been 'normal' but over the evolution of human society, it has been seen to be the source of social stress and disfunction, and thus Laws are created in which to try and steer individuals into no longer following such practices.
These practices are thus unethical.
Until society itself decides that belief in comfortable practices like going to church, praying to Gods, seeking advice through mediums and adoration of Santa etc...are in fact causing provable social disfunction, these things will remain.
The fact is, that those who complain about these are usually in one camp or another (religion bemoaning occult and visa versa) so there is a competition for revenue going on.
Where does science fit into this?

 

[Navigator]

Please stop anthropomorphizing "science". Science isn't people, it's a methodology. Saying "Why does science wish to change this?" is just as silly as saying "Why does cooking wish to change this?" or "Why does math wish to change this?". Science/Cooking/Math are things done by people, these endeavors don't have wishes of their own.

Hmmm...this is worthy of a thread all of it's own.
Okay - "Why do Scientists wish to change this?"

Does that help clarify what is being shared here apoger? Do you have other comment to make?

 

[apoger]

Okay - "Why do Scientists wish to change this?"

Does that help clarify what is being shared here apoger?

Yes, in the sense that scientists are people and can wish for change.

Calling people scientists says only that they utilize the methodology of science in their work. It does not have extra connotations dealing with "wishing" to debunk paranormal claims.

It may be correct that many who advocate the scientific method are also people that are concerned about charlatans who take advantage of those with less education. However saying it that way is quite different that the sweeping generalizations you are using.

You have also made a few statments linking science and truth. This is another mistake. Science does not deal in "truth". Truth is an absolute. Science does not work in absolutes. The "truth" is a philosophical construct. Often we see "truth" used in relation to religion, where the "truth" is applied via divine decree. Scientific method uses evidence to support facts rather than declarations of "the truth".

Converstation on these forums gets fairly technical sometimes. I suggest that you attempt to use less generalizations and absolutes, in order to facilitate clarity in your arguments.

Do you have other comment to make?

Yes, but I have people to meet and places to go. When I have some spare time I'll write up an essay dealing with your "Santa" complaint.

 

[Navigator]

Message recieved apoger

Often we see "truth" used in relation to religion, where the "truth" is applied via divine decree

Agreed - but so what? Does the word "Truth" belong to religion?
Scientific method uses evidence to support facts rather than declarations of "the truth".

Fact and Truth are the same thing.

Fact = The Truth

 

[Navigator]

Q: What is Truth?
A: Source Reality
Q: What is Source Reality?
A: Visible Source Reality Science

 

[apoger]

Fact = The Truth

This is incorrect.

A fact is the extent of our knowledge at this time with the evidence available.

For example: Hundreds of years ago it was a fact that our world was flat. Today we consider it a fact that the world is mostly spherical.

Facts change when new evidence is acquired. Facts are not assumed to be correct. They are merely as correct as possible under the current circumstances.


The Truth is an absolute statement about reality.

For example: Many people feel it is the Truth that our world was created by a divine source in seven days.

The Truth is immutable. It always was the Truth, is the Truth, and will be the Truth. If it were possible for it to be wrong ever, then it wouldn't be the Truth. No new evidence can alter the Truth, as it is already perfectly correct.


When people sit around eating pizza and having normal conversations, we tend to use langauage very casually. We often use poetic synonyms in order to communicate general ideas quickly. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is very efficient. Under such circumstances it is fine to use the words "fact" and "truth" as synonyms. However in a technical discussion, such as you are likely to engage in on this skeptics forum, you would be well advised to use language in a precise manner in order to avoid miscommunication.

 

[Navigator]

The Truth is an absolute statement about reality.

I think reality is Wonderful.

Someone else does not.

Which is Truth?

Who cares.

Is the Earth a Sphere? Is this absolutly certain?

Is so then it is The Truth = Fact.

So the Truth is relevent to the moment and in this is absolute.

The Moment is absolute and thus is truth.

The Source Of Reality Is Truth.

The Truth is, our concepts as a specie are constantly in flux - evolving with the knowldge we are gathering.

The Truth is immutable. It always was the Truth, is the Truth, and will be the Truth. If it were possible for it to be wrong ever, then it wouldn't be the Truth. No new evidence can alter the Truth, as it is already perfectly correct.

This is interresting and implies that the Truth never had a beginning but always has been and ever will be.

That is equally in descirption to G_D

It also implies that those things which have a beginning are not truth simply because they are ever changing.

Ah but what you have said....suggests that it is our understanding and perceptions about things which are not truth...but that an absolute universe is truth - so our discovery is in searching for truth, through the understanding of the facts as they present themselves to us.
This relies upon interpretation of what it is we are seeing in the universe.

So Fact is real and truth is not fact until the absolute facts about the truth are known?

Are there any known truths?

There are facts you say - but is there Truth?

The Truth is an absolute statement about reality.

Is that a fact or is that Truth?

 

[Navigator]

Randi requires that you demonstrate something paranormal, not something impossible. You will notice the verbage is not 'to demonstrate something impossible', which seems to be how you are intepretting paranormal.

I agree with your definition.(I sourced the one I used from a respected online Dictionary -

Which leads to the problem of clearly defined and mutually understood definitions as to the significance of "Paranormal" and other such items on the $1,000,000 Challenge Documentation.

Not only mutually understood - but entirely able to be understood by the average lay-person.

THere are more than one way to create Illusion.
There is only one way I know of which reveals Illusion.

And That Is The Truth.

 

[apoger]

Is so then it is The Truth = Fact.

I explained quite clearly why this is incorrect.

Which leads to the problem of clearly defined and mutually understood definitions as to the significance of "Paranormal" and other such items on the $1,000,000 Challenge Documentation.

I explained quite clearly why this is incorrect.


It would appear that you aren't interested in serious discourse. I am not wasting anymore time on you.

 

[Navigator]

I explained quite clearly why this is incorrect.




I explained quite clearly why this is incorrect.


It would appear that you aren't interested in serious discourse. I am not wasting anymore time on you.

Don't be like that!

Well okay...your choice entirely...I think my explanations and reply were as relevent..so there we are...subjectivity.

Go In Peace.

 

[Dancing David]

posted by navigator

Which leads to the problem of clearly defined and mutually understood definitions as to the significance of "Paranormal" and other such items on the $1,000,000 Challenge Documentation.

This issue for Randi is not the implications of paranormal events, as been discussed here many times on the borad. What Randi has done is address those who claim and report that they have paranormal abilites. Such as the ability to communiucate at a distance without conventional technology. Anyone who claims to have this power is welcome to take the challenge.

There is no issue of what defines paranormal , or psi or magic or any of those things. Even homeopathy is welcome to take the challenge because at the dilutions used by practioners there is no active ingredient and therefore is a claim made about pure water.

The Challenge is based upon the claims of those who believe that they have abilities and powers beyond the normal.

Second:
There is no truth or fact in science, there are observations and the method applied to those observations. Not all that is observable is a fact, which is why the methods of science have the power that they do.

 

[Navigator]

There is no truth or fact in science, there are observations and the method applied to those observations. Not all that is observable is a fact, which is why the methods of science have the power that they do.


No truth or fact in Science?


truth 1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard


fact 1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
http://www.m-w.com/


There seems to be a section of intellectualism which likes to see things differently from the normal.
Part of the argument used is to reconsign the use of commonly accepted words and their meanings.



So okay - that is what appears to be happening.....what is there in Science? Not truth not fact? So what?

Opinions based on what is observed with the option of changing those opinions based upon the likelyhood (or not) of new evidence coming forth?


Not all that is observable is a fact,

Not all that is unobservable is fiction

 

[Dancing David]

posted by Navigator
Opinions based on what is observed with the option of changing those opinions based upon the likelyhood (or not) of new evidence coming forth?

While some of the scientists on this board would take the hard line, "that which science establishes is fact", that is not an opinion that i would take as my own.

I would be more likely to phrase the statement " science dicovers consistancies in the material world and tries to make hypothessis which fit the observable consistancies".

But I feel that your point about he challenge is not one I agree with. There are many possible outcomes to someone sucsefuly passing the 1,000,000 challenge. Either a new area of understanding will be found or an old one will be expanded. The winner of the challenge will be a million dollars richer and the rest of us will have something cool to talk about.

The object of science is to explain observable phenomena, I do not believe that is a closed set and therefore whatever the outcome of the challenge, it is a good thing.

 

[LTC8K6]

At what age does an individual have to be before the Truth can be told?

That would vary according to the individual. When making a general statement about telling the truth about Santa, I think five years old is good.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

So both parties are motivated by NEED.

That's right. You need to believe in the supernatural, and they need to get their hands on your hard-earned cash.

Then what apart from fact, has science contributed? And how has this fact helped?

LOL! Oh, tell me you did not just say that! That is classic! OK, you had me going there for a while. But this quote has to be from a skeptic spoofing a true believer. It just has to be!

 

[Navigator]

While some of the scientists on this board would take the hard line, "that which science establishes is fact", that is not an opinion that i would take as my own.

I would be more likely to phrase the statement " science dicovers consistancies in the material world and tries to make hypothessis which fit the observable consistancies".

But I feel that your point about he challenge is not one I agree with. There are many possible outcomes to someone sucsefuly passing the 1,000,000 challenge. Either a new area of understanding will be found or an old one will be expanded. The winner of the challenge will be a million dollars richer and the rest of us will have something cool to talk about.

The object of science is to explain observable phenomena, I do not believe that is a closed set and therefore whatever the outcome of the challenge, it is a good thing.

Now this is the attitude!



I was thinking myself today that such a prize would attract the flies first....The danger of course is that these flies would poop on anything paranormal - My belief...call it an intuition - is that James (etc) will not assume the flies are the cream of the crop - as it were.
Leaving judgement aside - expose the hocus pocus but don't slander the same thing the frauds (by their actions) are slandering.

In other words...keep an open mind and genuine desire to examine those who would try to slander the possible integrity of the as yet unproven paranormal.

As to the genuine - well, they soldier on as best they can, and no doubt get by on what income makes itself available.
If they are satisfing clients, then no harm is done - just like with Santa - they are providing a nitch for a need.

Cheers!

 

[Navigator]

LOL! Oh, tell me you did not just say that! That is classic! OK, you had me going there for a while. But this quote has to be from a skeptic spoofing a true believer. It just has to be!

Hmmm..........Well to be perfectly honest with you - I am niether, but maybe both and then some.

It is like I can hear the sound of music from both camps and rather than choose either side. choose both and then add to the mix what I personally have experienced...well My intuition tells me that you would get along just fine with me.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

^Sounds good to me Navigator.

More power to you for examining both sides and making your own decision.

It's a real treat to get a lucid poster such as yourself participating here.

 

[Navigator]

^Sounds good to me Navigator.

More power to you for examining both sides and making your own decision.

It's a real treat to get a lucid poster such as yourself participating here.

Gosh!

I am taken aback! Tis not often such feedback is sent my way.

 

[The Don]

As to the genuine - well, they soldier on as best they can, and no doubt get by on what income makes itself available.
If they are satisfing clients, then no harm is done - just like with Santa - they are providing a nitch for a need.

Cheers!

Errrrm no.

Firstly, who are these "genuine" paranormal practitioners ?

Secondly, it's difficult to say what harm is being caused. If a practitioner manages to persuade someone not to seek help because of some mumbled platitiudes then I'd say harm is being caused. Harm is also being done to the application of scientific method when these irrational beliefs are allowed to propogate. We then end up with an attitude where parents fail to immunise their children because of the say-so of some crank

Thirdly, I would not teach my children (not that I have them) about a factual Santa. I would tell them about a fictional one (in the same way as they may get told about Cindarella or Jesus) and I would probably try and have some fun with it.