Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Red Baron Farms]

Exactly, if precursors to life are known to exist on bodies other than Earth and other planets in the so called Goldilocks zone are known to exist, and a location in universe where life and advanced life is known to exist
AND
There is no known physical condition that can allow for ESP and no known incidence of it being known to exist....

How in the name of Bayes can the later be considered equally probable as the former?

You are correct. It can't. It isn't. I have been trying to explain for many pages, this is not the proper use of Bayesian probability.

However, it is more than likely me miscommunicating. It has been many years since I studied such things. Not much use for them in a working man's world. Actually my brother has a masters in Math and could probably explain it better. However, as far as I remember and IIRC, there must be a prior non zero probability and the hypothesis must be rational and consistent with the known laws of physics (or at least not proven inconsistent). Then as more information/knowledge is obtained the probability calculation changes with it.

 

[Daylightstar]

You are correct. It can't. It isn't. I have been trying to explain for many pages, this is not the proper use of Bayesian probability.

However, it is more than likely me miscommunicating. ... Actually my brother has a masters in Math and could probably explain it better. ...

I'm not so sure that changing the explanation will make any difference whatsoever:

... You will not change my mind, I won't change yours. ...

... Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time.

... I had a pretty good idea my mind wouldn't be changed on this thread ...

 

[rocketdodger]

Jt is right. Science is inductive. The probability of all inductive claims is between zero and 1. The probability that the Earth goes around the sun is not 1. It has a lot of 9's in it, but it's not 1.

For any observation, there are always competing theories to explain it, and only the logically impossible/incoherent explanations can be a priori ruled out.

Yes I understand this for any *specific* observation.

But the laws of physics, taken as a whole, are a system. Outside of quantum level theories, they are 100% true -- if you change *any* of them, the rest fall apart. That's why it is called "physics" and not "an independent collection of models that have nothing to do with each other."

That's why observations of non-perfect confidence can lead to a model that we have perfect confidence in. There are literally zero alternative models that simultaneously predict the high number of observations.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am assuming that the laws of physics are laws. But the theories of physics that underly those laws were confirmed by experiments that have a non-zero probability of being wrong. The Higgs boson experiments, for example, had a false positive probability (ie, a Type I error probability) of about 10^-6. That's tiny, but it's not 0.

See my reply to fudbucker.

I agree that the observations and theories that they lead to have a nonzero probability of being wrong.

My point is that we can mathematically define the possible error inherent in a model developed using imperfect predictions.

Then if you only *need* a certain precision -- or in other words you can tolerate certain error -- you can claim 100% probability in the model's accuracy.

That's why higgs boson experiments don't really take away from the known laws of physics that govern particle behavior on an aggregate level -- we know two planets in space will attract each other, all else being equal. There is 0% question it will happen.

Not everyone agrees that we have such confidence in the laws governing how the brain works ( it tends to be the less educated that have the doubts, mind you ) but the same logic applies -- we know enough about biology, through imperfect measurements, to be sure of perfection in our model down to a certain threshold. If that threshold is below the magnitude of error that would be necessary to "miss" something like ESP, then we can say with 100% assurance that ESP does not exist.

 

[Dinwar]

Jt is right. Science is inductive. The probability of all inductive claims is between zero and 1. The probability that the Earth goes around the sun is not 1. It has a lot of 9's in it, but it's not 1.

This is nothing short of using statistics to hide from the facts. The Earth orbits the Sun. We have observed it, we can use it to make extremely precise calculations, we have enough evidence for it to know it in any way imaginable. It is only a hyper-pedantic, I am tempted to say a pathologically pedantic, mentality that would refuse to accept that it has been proven.

Not everyone agrees that we have such confidence in the laws governing how the brain works ( it tends to be the less educated that have the doubts, mind you ) but the same logic applies -- we know enough about biology, through imperfect measurements, to be sure of perfection in our model down to a certain threshold. If that threshold is below the magnitude of error that would be necessary to "miss" something like ESP, then we can say with 100% assurance that ESP does not exist.

To put it a different way: The probability of ESP existing is so small that there's no way to actually measure it. Thus, to any sane, rational person, the probability is zero. Refusing to accept this is merely an attempt to shut down the conversation.

 

[beachnut]

... The probability that the Earth goes around the sun is not 1. It has a lot of 9's in it, but it's not 1. ...

It is 1. ESP remains at zero, earth making an orbit around the Sun remains at one.

 

[jt512]

This is nothing short of using statistics to hide from the facts. The Earth orbits the Sun. We have observed it, we can use it to make extremely precise calculations, we have enough evidence for it to know it in any way imaginable. It is only a hyper-pedantic, I am tempted to say a pathologically pedantic, mentality that would refuse to accept that it has been proven.

I agree with you that it has been proven that the earth revolves around the sun; in fact, it is so well proven that I'm a little embarrassed to have just written this sentence. However, it is consistent to say that it has been proven and that there is a non-zero probability that it is false, because what it means to empirically prove something is to demonstrate such strong evidence for it that its probability of being false is too small to worry about. Yet that probability is still not 0. It cannot be if there ever was any doubt about the hypothesis.

At one time, there was indeed doubt that the earth revolved around the sun; there was a time, therefore, that the probability of the hypothesis was less that 1. Over time, we have gathered evidence in favor of the hypothesis, but the laws of valid inductive reasoning require us to update the odds in favor of the hypothesis by multiplying them by the relative support of the evidence for the hypothesis. A consequence of valid inference being multiplicative is that no matter how much evidence we gather, the probability of the hypothesis—any hypothesis—can never reach 1. But that in no way precludes science from proving something. Rather, it implies that proving something scientifically precisely means demonstrating it to such a high probability that it would be absurd not to treat it as fact.

To put it a different way: The probability of ESP existing is so small that there's no way to actually measure it. Thus, to any sane, rational person, the probability is zero.

Actually, it is literally true that to a rational person the probability must be non-zero. You should read some of the seminal works on inductive inference by Cox, Savage, Jeffreys, Jaynes, etc.

Refusing to accept this is merely an attempt to shut down the conversation.

As opposed to saying that something has probability zero of being wrong? A strange accusation indeed.

 

[rocketdodger]

To put it a different way: The probability of ESP existing is so small that there's no way to actually measure it. Thus, to any sane, rational person, the probability is zero. Refusing to accept this is merely an attempt to shut down the conversation.

Well that's not really the same thing.

I'm saying that given imperfect measurements we still have the perfection of symbolic mathematics to give us error bounds. For example we can measure the mass of an object and even if we have horrible equipment, we can still come up with a slew of values that we can use -- as long as we are OK with the error.

Then if you say "when I drop this object, will it break an egg?" we can answer with "no," "sometimes," "usually," or "always." The "always" doesn't mean "so often that we might as well treat it as always," it means literally "always."

If we have an object we think is like 150lbs to 300lbs, we know with 100% certainty that it will smash an egg that it is dropped on. 100% of the time. Zero probability for the egg to survive. Yet our confidence in an *exact* weight of the object is very low.

 

[Dinwar]

As opposed to saying that something has probability zero of being wrong? A strange accusation indeed.

I've seen conversations go a LOT further when ideas are accepted and we are allowed to examine their implications, than when some puffed-up stuffed shirt who's never actually dealt with real-world aspects of science jumps in with "Well, actually, the probability is 0.999999999999999999%, not 1."

Yet that probability is still not 0. It cannot be if there ever was any doubt about the hypothesis.

See, that's the part I don't buy: that there's no way to ever remove all doubt from a hypothesis. The simple fact is that there is: observation. Once something becomes data, it's fact--data are what they are, and cannot be disproven. (Interpretations can, and the boundary between them is one of the most difficult things in science to define at times, but data by definition cannot be disproven.) Furthermore, I see no reason why confidence can be eliminated but doubt cannot be. At a certain point, doubt--even infantesimal doubt like that folks are saying they have that the Earth goes around the Sun--is simply not reasonable. There is precisely NO justification for ANY doubt about the Earth going around the Sun. As always, I am willing to be proven wrong--if you can give me one good reason to doubt it, I'll retract my statement. But until someone does, I am perfectly justified in saying that the doubt presented in this thread--small as it may be--is unreasonable.

Finally, the fact that someone once doubted something in no way proves that I must now doubt it in any way. All it means is that they doubted it. I am not obliged to recognize their doubt. There are no authorities in science, only experts--and I've disagreed with experts routinely.

But that in no way precludes science from proving something. Rather, it implies that proving something scientifically precisely means demonstrating it to such a high probability that it would be absurd not to treat it as fact.

See, I'm a bit of a heretic in today's statistics-in-place-of-understanding world: once disagreeing with something becomes so irrational that doing so demonstrates one is looking at sanity in the rear-view mirror, I say it's been proven. I see no reason to reserve the word for mathematical use only, and I find the demand that we use mathematical jargon in non-mathematical discussions to be, well, pathologically pedantic. It is a misapplication of jargon, and has all the validity of me insisting that Hollywood script writers use the cladistic definition of "character". We're not talking math, we're talking science--and there IS a difference, despite what the worse sort of physicists and mathematicians will tell you (the rest of us science types laugh at those people). Therefore it's not just annoying, but actually wrong to demand that we use mathematical jargon.

 

[jaydeehess]

See, that's the part I don't buy: that there's no way to ever remove all doubt from a hypothesis. The simple fact is that there is: observation. Once something becomes data, it's fact--data are what they are, and cannot be disproven. (Interpretations can, and the boundary between them is one of the most difficult things in science to define at times, but data by definition cannot be disproven

The only caveat is that the veracity of data can be questioned. Was the observer correctly recording it, was the measuring device properly calibrated and utilized?

 

[Dinwar]

Think of it this way: Let's say you and I bet on the outcome of a ball game. However, I stipulate that we must know with 100% certainty who won. I say the Detroit Tigers will win, you say the LA Angels will. There's obviously doubt, right? Then we watch the game. The Angels win, 7 to 4. Would you be okay with me not paying because we can't be 100% certain who won? After all, there was doubt in the past--so we can never reach 100% certainty as to who won, right?

And in truth, many scientific experiments are far more definitive than that. Look up Strong Inferrence sometime--using that methodology, it is logically necessary both that one of the working hypotheses be right, and that ONLY one of the working hypotheses be right. The experiment is definitive; one working hypothesis remains, while the others are conclusively disproven, and since they cover the full range of possibillities (okay, of sane, rational possibilities) there's no justification for doubt.

 

[Dinwar]

The only caveat is that the veracity of data can be questioned. Was the observer correctly recording it, was the measuring device properly calibrated and utilized?

For certain types of data, sure, this applies. Kinda hard to question something like a T. rex femur, though.

 

[jaydeehess]

For certain types of data, sure, this applies. Kinda hard to question something like a T. rex femur, though.

Should have said " one possible caveat". Yes in the case of Tigers v. Angels there is a remote possibility that 3 Tiger runs will later be disallowed and the outcome changed to a tie. However, the bet would be settled between us and ignore that very remote possibility with the understanding that if such occurred we would review the bet and have you refund my wager, or let it stand for purely societal reasons.
BUT that gets is back to the 0.999999999999999 ridiculousness. If there exists no prior incident in which a ball game has runs disallowed post game, or multiple runs disallowed we can expect the veracity of the data to be 100% accurate.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wait, are ties allowed in baseball?

 

[Dinwar]

However, the bet would be settled between us and ignore that very remote possibility with the understanding that if such occurred we would review the bet and have you refund my wager.

I've never even heard of such a caveat in a bet, to be honest. Every bet I've seen or been involved with treats the final score as 100% proof of who won, unless there was some extraordinary reason during the game to treat it as otherwise.

If there exists no prior incident in which a ball game has runs disallowed post game, or multiple runs disallowed we can expect the veracity of the data to be 100% accurate.

Exactly. And to bring the metaphore back to the Earth rotating around the Sun, that means that in order to accept doube we must have some reason TO doubt, something beyond an equation. There has to be a real-world reason. The reason is that science isn't just math--it's an attempt to understand the real world. So you've always got to bring the logic back to reality, you've always got to be able to point to specific data to support your position. If your position is "We are not certain that the Earth orbits the Sun", you need to be able to point to specific data causing that uncertainty. If you can't, your statement is arbitrary and fundamentally not scientific.

 

[jaydeehess]

Exactly. And to bring the metaphore back to the Earth rotating around the Sun, that means that in order to accept doube we must have some reason TO doubt, something beyond an equation. There has to be a real-world reason. The reason is that science isn't just math--it's an attempt to understand the real world. So you've always got to bring the logic back to reality, you've always got to be able to point to specific data to support your position. If your position is "We are not certain that the Earth orbits the Sun", you need to be able to point to specific data causing that uncertainty. If you can't, your statement is arbitrary and fundamentally not scientific.

Not being serious with this next bit:
God can do anything.

 

[Dinwar]

Not being serious with this next bit:
God can do anything.

Science assumes methodological naturalism.

 

[jt512]

I say it's been proven. [. . .] We're not talking math, we're talking science--and there IS a difference, despite what the worse sort of physicists and mathematicians will tell you (the rest of us science types laugh at those people).

I didn't realize that you were a superior scientist to Richard Feynman, much less that he was the "worst sort" of physicist. But don't worry: now that I know, I'll be more deferential to you.

Look up Strong Inferrence sometime--using that methodology, it is logically necessary both that one of the working hypotheses be right, and that ONLY one of the working hypotheses be right.

Logically, yes. But the result of the critical experiment (if one even exists) could be wrong, and thus the logic of strong inference would lead to believing that the false hypothesis was true.

 

[Fudbucker]

It is 1. ESP remains at zero, earth making an orbit around the Sun remains at one.

This is wrong, for obvious reasons, and it continually amazes me how many "skeptics" here are ignorant of basic axioms of epistemology.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes I understand this for any *specific* observation.

But the laws of physics, taken as a whole, are a system. Outside of quantum level theories, they are 100% true -- if you change *any* of them, the rest fall apart. That's why it is called "physics" and not "an independent collection of models that have nothing to do with each other."

That's why observations of non-perfect confidence can lead to a model that we have perfect confidence in. There are literally zero alternative models that simultaneously predict the high number of observations.

No. Only necessary truths are "100%" true. There's nothing necessary about the laws of physics (either taken separately OR as a whole). They are contingently true and are based on observations that fallible humans have made.