How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[fromdownunder]

To make this more explicit, let's say that they all signed affidavits saying that what each of them saw was a large flying disc that hovered about 100 meters over their heads for a few seconds, then disappeared at a high rate of speed, and that among the signers were Penn and Teller, Randi, and several physicists and astronomers. How much weight would you accord that?

Do you accept the testimony of the eight, who saw the golden tablets that Joseph Smith transcribed the Book of Mormon from, or would you seek further evidence that Moroni actually existed?

How much weight to you give to this testimony?

Norm

 

[Rodney]

Do you accept the testimony of the eight, who saw the golden tablets that Joseph Smith transcribed the Book of Mormon from, or would you seek further evidence that Moroni actually existed?

How much weight to you give to this testimony?

Norm

Not that much because it's unclear that the eight were objective witnesses. But let me make my point even more explicit: Suppose the International Astronomical Union were having its annual meeting and dozens of world-class astronomers -- with no dissenting voices -- gave a detailed description of a flying saucer that they claim to have witnessed close-up. Would you still discount all of those accounts?

 

[fromdownunder]

I would evaluate the evidence. No more, no less. How much have you evaluated the evidence for or against the Joseph Smith witnesses, or do you simply think that "this can't be true, therefore I dismiss it"? What makes you think that they lied?

Norm

 

[Rodney]

I would evaluate the evidence. No more, no less. How much have you evaluated the evidence for or against the Joseph Smith witnesses, or do you simply think that "this can't be true, therefore I dismiss it"? What makes you think that they lied?

Norm

I don't know that they lied, but the facts are murky. In my hypothetical, on the other hand, I think the evidence would be persuasive. My point is that anecdotal evidence ranges from worthless to questionable to intriguing to persuasive, but many here seem to treat all anecdotes as if they have little or no value.

 

[fromdownunder]

I agree to a point. If I said I had Bacon and Eggs for breakfast, nobody would actually care enough to investigate. Bit if they looked through the rubbish, they might find egg shells and bacon rind, which would give credence to my statement.

But if I claimed that I shared the Bacon and Eggs with aliens that landed on my back lawn, and produced the same evidence (bacon rind and egg shells) a lot of people, (well everybody) would want a whole lot more.

The same applies to your hypothetical, regardless of who signed what. I would require corroborating evidence, and would need far more than a signed document.

Anyway we have gotten into a sidebar here. Let's get back to synchrosity.

Norm

 

[Prometheus]

Not that much because it's unclear that the eight were objective witnesses. But let me make my point even more explicit: Suppose the International Astronomical Union were having its annual meeting and dozens of world-class astronomers -- with no dissenting voices -- gave a detailed description of a flying saucer that they claim to have witnessed close-up. Would you still discount all of those accounts?

Absent any independently collected corroborating physical evidence, I would have to balance their claims against the possibility that they're either victims or perpetrators of a deliberate fraud. But what does this have to do with Synchronicity? Nobody ever puts forward any case alleged to be an example of Synchronicity that has anything like even that level of documentation.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Not that much because it's unclear that the eight were objective witnesses. But let me make my point even more explicit: Suppose the International Astronomical Union were having its annual meeting and dozens of world-class astronomers -- with no dissenting voices -- gave a detailed description of a flying saucer that they claim to have witnessed close-up. Would you still discount all of those accounts?

I doubt any of these astronomers would conclude that what they saw was from outer space. They would simply report that they saw something unusual. There would be no reason to doubt them.

 

[Rodney]

I doubt any of these astronomers would conclude that what they saw was from outer space. They would simply report that they saw something unusual. There would be no reason to doubt them.

I agree. My point is that the quality of eyewitness accounts varies widely. In some cases, it is appropriate to dismiss such accounts as lacking in credibility. In other cases, however, the credibility may be significant, and so it is inappropriate to summarily dismiss those accounts as being "only anecdotal evidence."

 

[Prometheus]

I agree. My point is that the quality of eyewitness accounts varies widely. In some cases, it is appropriate to dismiss such accounts as lacking in credibility. In other cases, however, the credibility may be significant, and so it is inappropriate to summarily dismiss those accounts as being "only anecdotal evidence."

"Anecdotal Evidence" does not equal "eyewitness accounts". If you tell me about the scenario involving all these astronomers, then all I have is a single anecdote provided by you, ie. "anecdotal evidence". By itself, this is not worth very much at all, regardless of what I may think of your credibility or of that of the astronomers.

If I actually look at the sworn affidavits provided by each of those astronomers, verify that they are authentic and that the signatures were witnessed, etc., then it is no longer anecdotal evidence, it's now corroborated evidence which is properly given more weight than the former. But even if all of the astronomers' credibility is stellar, it still doesn't rise to the level of physical evidence, and certainly not anywhere near the level of independently replicated experimental evidence.

 

[Dr H]

I agree. My point is that the quality of eyewitness accounts varies widely. In some cases, it is appropriate to dismiss such accounts as lacking in credibility. In other cases, however, the credibility may be significant, and so it is inappropriate to summarily dismiss those accounts as being "only anecdotal evidence."

Scrupulously honest citizens, deliberate liars, Ph.Ds, and blithering idiots have all been deceived or mistaken at one time or another. The credibility of a witnessed event cannot be judged from an anecdotal report of the event alone. It must be judged by the actual evidence available. If there is physical evidence corroborating the report, then the report gains credibility. If there is only anecdotal evidence, then the report's credibility remains questionable.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I agree. My point is that the quality of eyewitness accounts varies widely. In some cases, it is appropriate to dismiss such accounts as lacking in credibility. In other cases, however, the credibility may be significant, and so it is inappropriate to summarily dismiss those accounts as being "only anecdotal evidence."

The credibility of the original source might be stellar, but by the time the anecdote reaches public awareness, there's no telling how much it's been modified.

 

[Maia]

Wow. I just can't believe how long this thread has been going on...

Anyway, I think that the difference between anecdotal evidence and case studies should be clarified.
Case studies take place under reasonably controlled conditions and are reported by doctors, scientists, or researchers. They are not considered to be the the highest-rated form of evidence (that would be double-blind studies), but there are times when they are the best evidence possible. A good example is a case study of a particular patient who had an unusual reaction to a given medication. One which comes to mind was a subject whose responses to carbamazapine (for bipolar disorder) were suddenly unpredictable after he'd eaten pomegranates. A number of other case studies were done showing the same reaction. This led to testing of the compounds in pomegranates, which in turn led to the discovery that these compounds interfered with the enzymes in the liver that also process the psychiatric drug. Prior to these case studies, this effect wasn't known (it's similar to the grapefruit effect. Did you know that regularly eating large amounts of grapefruit can interfere with the processing of a large number of medications? Well, now you do.)

So this is what case studies can accomplish-- providing overlooked information which leads to further research. In the case of all the credible eyewitnesses who would have seen the UFO's, I guess that could sort of do the same thing. Yes, if all of the people that Rodney mentioned actually saw UFO's and signed statements to that effect, then it would be worth following up on. But the problem is that this hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. It's sort of feeling like deja vu all over again. Didn't we already have this basic conversation in the VFF thread?

 

[Uncayimmy]

"Anecdotal Evidence" does not equal "eyewitness accounts". If you tell me about the scenario involving all these astronomers, then all I have is a single anecdote provided by you, ie. "anecdotal evidence". By itself, this is not worth very much at all, regardless of what I may think of your credibility or of that of the astronomers.

If I actually look at the sworn affidavits provided by each of those astronomers, verify that they are authentic and that the signatures were witnessed, etc., then it is no longer anecdotal evidence, it's now corroborated evidence which is properly given more weight than the former. But even if all of the astronomers' credibility is stellar, it still doesn't rise to the level of physical evidence, and certainly not anywhere near the level of independently replicated experimental evidence.

Rodney knows this, of course. In my mind he proposes these hypotheticals to lend credence to all the nonsense out there. In other words, "don't dismiss this anecdote by a friend of a friend because if a group of scientists staked their reputations on the same story, you'd pay attention."

The one factor you left out is that there comes a point when you have a buttload of anecdotes where physical evidence should found yet none is found despite repeated attempts, individual anecdotes become even less credible.

 

[fromdownunder]

The one factor you left out is that there comes a point when you have a buttload of anecdotes where physical evidence should found yet none is found despite repeated attempts, individual anecdotes become even less credible.

As in Elvis sightings.

Norm

 

[tsig]

I don't know that they lied, but the facts are murky. In my hypothetical, on the other hand, I think the evidence would be persuasive. My point is that anecdotal evidence ranges from worthless to questionable to intriguing to persuasive, but many here seem to treat all anecdotes as if they have little or no value.

That's because anyone can tale a tale.

 

[Prometheus]

Rodney knows this, of course. In my mind he proposes these hypotheticals to lend credence to all the nonsense out there. In other words, "don't dismiss this anecdote by a friend of a friend because if a group of scientists staked their reputations on the same story, you'd pay attention."

The one factor you left out is that there comes a point when you have a buttload of anecdotes where physical evidence should found yet none is found despite repeated attempts, individual anecdotes become even less credible.

Oops, my bad. You're right, and actually I'd even take that thought farther. Any anecdote should automatically be discounted if you search for attending physical evidence and find none, and if you don't search for physical evidence, then the maximum credibility that should be ascribed to the anecdote in the first place is that it warrants such a search.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Oops, my bad. You're right, and actually I'd even take that thought farther. Any anecdote should automatically be discounted if you search for attending physical evidence and find none, and if you don't search for physical evidence, then the maximum credibility that should be ascribed to the anecdote in the first place is that it warrants such a search.

Well said.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oops, my bad. You're right, and actually I'd even take that thought farther. Any anecdote should automatically be discounted if you search for attending physical evidence and find none, and if you don't search for physical evidence, then the maximum credibility that should be ascribed to the anecdote in the first place is that it warrants such a search.

It is well-known that Jung relied heavily on anecdotal evidence, but the way he actually used it is somewhat sneaky. He would talk at length about the importance of empirical evidence, and then use anecdotes as an illustrating point. Naturally, the anecdotes are what sticks in the reader's mind after poring through the massive and dense writings of Jung.

The implication was that there was plenty of good evidence available for anyone to find, yet Jung never seemed to produce it himself.

 

[WWHP]

Although I have not read the entire thread, I am shocked no one here was properly able to define synchronicity. It is not co-incidence. It is the blending of the meaningful reality (our subjective reality with it's own language, ideas, patterns) with meaningless reality (objective reality).

We can only view meaningless reality from the meaningful viewpoint, yet when the two co-incide, align, it produces an profound experience where the internal and the external appear to be working together.

It is an experience of harmony, it is irrelevant if the event in objective and meaningless reality is, well meaningless! it is the harmony of the meaningful and the meaningless, which produce a transcendent.


Just my two thoughts

 

[Maia]

And now it's time for another amazing paranormal psychic prediction.... (crystal ball is whipped out from its special secret hiding place under the counter, right next to the stash of chocolate. Somebody's been eating it!!)

We will now hear about the Type I and Type II errors yet AGAIN. And probably the Texas sharpshooter too.