• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ESP and Reincarnation

shuttlt said:
Ryan,

As the originator of the 'troll' comment, I thought I'd post. Bob has a very unusual posting style. Knowledgeable, and wide eyed and innocent at the same time. Time and again he makes beautifully constructed apparently self-contradictory statements. I find it hard to believe that somebody could post about having arrived at views after years of critical thinking, while claiming that their views are just beliefs that are not supported by any critical thinking, without at least some humorous intent.

He's most welcome to the forum of course. This place pisses me off sometimes for beating people up rather than helping to coax what coherent thoughts there may be out of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I think I kind of see what you mean. I've followed this entire thread, and I'm still not exactly sure why Bob has kept posting what seems to be a pretty consistent paradoxical position on critical thinking vs. beliefs that are inherently proclaimed to not be the result of critical thinking. If that's not the case, it's doing a very good imitation of it! This certainly doesn't mean that a wide range of opinions shouldn't be here. But... let me see if I can provide an example of what I mean...

I'm not an atheist or a theist, and I mean what I say when I describe myself as a mystic. My take on true mysticism is that it makes it impossible for me to start a thread about beliefs, because I don't really believe anything in that direction at all. I don't have any answers. I don't have any questions. My answer to anything along those lines ("Does God answer prayer? Is God running everything? Why does God permit evil? Did God create the universe? Does God exist? etc.) would be: "I don't know." There are answers, but not the kind you're thinking of.

Let's just say that the thread would be really short. There's no way I could keep it up for five pages! ;) So why exactly HAS this thread gone on this long? If reincarnation and ESP don't have any logical basis for belief in this context, and if they're not really being defended, then how exactly how this gotten dragged out for 5 pages? I think it's fair for people to at least ask these questions.
 
Maia said:
Bob has kept posting what seems to be a pretty consistent paradoxical position on critical thinking vs. beliefs...

Let's just say that the thread would be really short. There's no way I could keep it up for five pages! ;) So why exactly HAS this thread gone on this long? If reincarnation and ESP don't have any logical basis for belief in this context, and if they're not really being defended, then how exactly how this gotten dragged out for 5 pages? I think it's fair for people to at least ask these questions.
Click to expand...

I drank way too much coffee yesterday so here it is at 2:15 in the morning and I'm at this confounded computer! Regardless:

Why does a lawyer keep a person on the stand for hours and hours asking him the same question six zillion ways? I'm not a lawyer but I think it's to wear the defendant down to where he snaps or at least contradicts himself sounding like a blithering idiot. I think that is what has happened here although I haven't cracked!

I made my beliefs known from the very beginning but the respondents did like like that position and, like the lawyer analogy, they kept asking the same questions numerous different ways to try to get me to stumble.

I tried to end this conversation many times because I really got sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over.

However, doing this has been beneficial to me in a very interesting way. Now mind you, I have not changed my position one iota. However, in being forced to defend it as I have, I have become much more lucid in my thinking on this subject and therefore, much more adept at explaining myself.

For example, I did not use the expression "the blank state" originally; someone else did. However, after it was used I felt very comfortable with it and realized that "the blank state" was, perhaps, the best expression for me to use in the context of reincarnation.

On another issue, you have brought up the subject of critical thinking which seems to be a catchword on this forum. I have been wondering if we have been using different defintions for this phrase. Let me tell you what I think it means and I don't profess to be a semantics expert; in other words, I could be wrong!

Critical thinking means putting your brain into overdrive and having its neurons fire away at a breakneck pace in order for you to come up with ideas, creativity and, now here's where we may differ, speculation. Yes! Speculation!

It seems to me that speculation involves critical thinking and speculating is what I have done to come up with my beliefs on ESP and Reincarnation.

Do you guys remember Carl Sagan, who unfortunately died at too young an age. Would anybody on this forum ever accuse him of not being a critical thinker? Of course not! The question was rhetorical.

Carl Sagan was a master at speculation which resulted in a multitude of ideas regarding alien life and space travel. I am not comparing myself to Carl Sagan who was immeasureably smarter than I am and I don't want to be accused of doing that!

Well my speculation (critical thinking if you will) lead me to my beliefs on ESP and Reincarnation.

That's it!

I'm not sure but perhaps it was a lack of clarity regarding the definition of critcal thinking which has caused this thread to last as long as it has.

I don't know! I'm just speculating. I'm thinking critically!
 
Last edited:
I think we do have a difference in definition. To me, speculation is a starting point. You have to apply critical thinking to your speculations to see if they make sense, see if they match up with other observations and if they're logically coherent. This is the part people keep asking you about, but you're staying at the speculation stage.
 
Mashuna said:
I think we do have a difference in definition. To me, speculation is a starting point. You have to apply critical thinking to your speculations to see if they make sense, see if they match up with other observations and if they're logically coherent. This is the part people keep asking you about, but you're staying at the speculation stage.
Click to expand...

I see. I accept this but I must ask; what kind of thinking is used for serious speculation; deep thinking perhaps? Yes. Let's go with "deep thinking".

I do believe that if I change the expression "critical thinking" to "deep thinking" in all my posts, the content and ideas from my point of view remain the same.

Consider it done!

Are we all happy now and can we move on?

Thankfully the coffee is wearing off so back to bed.

Bob Guercio
 
shuttlt said:
Bob,

I'm not sure having a plausible looking name is a good indication of whether you are a troll. I apologise if I've bitten your head of without cause. As I said, you are welcome to believe in whatever you want. When you're ready to start a topic and discuss something I promise to be polite and respectful.
Click to expand...

Shuttlt,

We are starting over on a clean slate. The bickering back and forth never happened.

Bob:):)
 
Critical Thinking

Folks,

I found this definition of critical thinking at http://www.criticalthinking.net/

Definition of Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is here assumed to be reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. This rough overall definition is, we believe, in accord with the way the term is generally used these days. Under this interpretation, critical thinking is relevant not only to the formation and checking of beliefs, but also to deciding upon and evaluating actions. It involves creative activities such as formulating hypotheses, plans, and counterexamples; planning experiments; and seeing alternatives. Furthermore critical thinking is reflective -- and reasonable. The negative, harping, complaining characteristic that is sometimes labeled by the word, "critical", is not involved
I believe that speculation involves critical thinking; however, I have not formally studied critical thinking so I will defer to one who has.

So please, if you have formally studied this, please speak up.

Normally I don't get wrapped around the axle on semantics but in this case it's different. After all, critical thinking seems to be the foundation of this forum.

Bob Guercio
 
Bob Guercio said:
Folks,

I found this definition of critical thinking at http://www.criticalthinking.net/

Definition of Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is here assumed to be reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. This rough overall definition is, we believe, in accord with the way the term is generally used these days. Under this interpretation, critical thinking is relevant not only to the formation and checking of beliefs, but also to deciding upon and evaluating actions. It involves creative activities such as formulating hypotheses, plans, and counterexamples; planning experiments; and seeing alternatives. Furthermore critical thinking is reflective -- and reasonable. The negative, harping, complaining characteristic that is sometimes labeled by the word, "critical", is not involved
I believe that speculation involves critical thinking; however, I have not formally studied critical thinking so I will defer to one who has.

So please, if you have formally studied this, please speak up.

Normally I don't get wrapped around the axle on semantics but in this case it's different. After all, critical thinking seems to be the foundation of this forum.

Bob Guercio
Click to expand...


You aren't tangled up with semantics at all. It's just a matter of saying that two words with completely different meanings can be redfined at whim to mean the same thing, so it's more like equivocation than anything.

I can speculate Invisible Pink Unicorns all day, but a moment of critical thinking casts them out of existence.

One of these things is not both the same as each other, to be perfectly plain.


As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.


Waenre
 
Akhenaten said:
You haz ESP!eleven!? :yikes:
Click to expand...

As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio
 
Bob Guercio said:
As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio
Click to expand...

I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.
 
Bob--I'm glad you mentioned Carl Sagan. He's one of my favorites too!

Have you read his book The Demon-Haunted World? If not, I highly recommend it. He talks about critical thinking and how we can apply it to our own thoughts and beliefs, as well as how to use skeptical thinking tools in evaluating new information.

In one section of the book, he gives a hypothetical situation about a person who claims to have a fire-breathing dragon in his garage. Since the dragon is invisible, leaving no footprints and no scent or sign from his breath, the dragon cannot be verified, and thus there is no reason for others to accept its existence, even provisionally. Now, the man with the "dragon" fails to grasp that the lack of evidence needs to be taken into account as he constructs his beliefs. There is nothing to differentiate his idea of there being an invisible dragon from there being no dragon in there at all.

Your ideas on reincarnation, as you've expressed them here, remain mere assertions. and I can't diffferentiate them from the dragon in the garage. :(
 
Mashuna said:
I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mashuna.

It does seem that there are some genius's on this forum that have little patience for those of average intelligence.

Regards,
Bob
 
blue sock monkey said:
Bob--I'm glad you mentioned Carl Sagan. He's one of my favorites too!

Have you read his book The Demon-Haunted World? If not, I highly recommend it.(
Click to expand...

I'm at the lilbrary now so I'll get it.

Yes. He is one of my favorites also.

We lost a great person when he died. He never did anything brilliant in the field of Physics (I think that was his field), but he was a tremendous advocate for science and the public liked him.

Bob
 
Bob Guercio said:
As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio
Click to expand...


Mashuna said:
I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.
Click to expand...


Exactly as I intended it. Nothing like Bob's translation.



Bob Guercio said:
Thanks Mashuna.

It does seem that there are some genius's on this forum that have little patience for those of average intelligence.

Regards,
Bob
Click to expand...


Hyperbole much? Try the new Rhetoric+ Now with added verbosity!
 
Bob Guercio said:
I'm at the lilbrary now so I'll get it.

Yes. He is one of my favorites also.

We lost a great person when he died. He never did anything brilliant in the field of Physics (I think that was his field), but he was a tremendous advocate for science and the public liked him.

Bob
Click to expand...


:yikes:


The Carl Sagen Portal

Carl Sagan was the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University.

He played a leading role in the American space program since its inception.

He was a consultant and adviser to NASA since the 1950's, briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets.

He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperatures of Venus (answer: massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (answer: windblown dust), and the reddish haze of Titan (answer: complex organic molecules).

For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for Distinguished Public Service, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award.

Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him.

He was also awarded the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society, ""for his extraordinary contributions to the development of planetary science."

As a scientist trained in both astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan has made seminal contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary scientists working today are his present and former students and associates.
Click to expand...
.
 
Yes, but apart from that, what have the Romans has Carl Sagan ever done for physics?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom