Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Fudbucker]

1. Your link is inoperative:

...does not comprise an argument.

2. You, personally, advance the claim that

...to which my response is, and will continue to be, "What studies have you read, what evidence do you have, that has led you to your belief?"



Praps you should stand that person of straw, pockets stuffed with pale pink sprats, over there under that windmill, with the other ones.

Anecdotal evidence is, in fact, a dandy way to develop, or support, an opinion.

Where you do err is in your apparent assertion that your opinion becomes fact if you collect enough anecdotes. This is much of a muchness with believers' opinions about their 'gods'.



Odd. You seem to be playing the "If you only believed as I believe, you would come to understand why you should believe as I believe," card.

As long as you are seeking to form, or support, or enhance, or validate, an opinion, subjective experience is a great place to start.

For determining objective fact? Not so much.



Praps you'd be so kind as to demonstrate who has done so? It may be that when you construct your arguments in the same way believers construct theirs, you get similar responses...



¡Que linda su Verónica Grande!

No, that is not at all what was said. Consider responding to what is actually posted, instead of what you wished had been posted, or hoped would be posted.



When my partner says, "I love you," or when I tell my partner that my partner's smile causes my heart to make a sound like thirty couple hounds a'questin', I believe my partner, and believe that my partner believes me; neither of us would be so foolish as to claim that either statement comprises objective proof that we love each other. When my partner brings me a glass of Indian Wells Orange Blossom Amber Beer out of the clear blue sky ('scuse me while I take a sip..."Here's to us!/Who's
like us?/Damned few, and they're all dead, 'god' help 'em!"), that is not objective evidence that we love each other, nor is the fact that I wake my partner with coffee adulterated to spec every single morning objective evidence.

OTH, I am content, and consider us to be far out on the right-tail of the married happiness curve. I would not be so foolish as to speak of my love as an objectively-demonstrated fact.

I do not confuse subjective opinion with objective evidence.



4. The link (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...ke-on-esp.html/) you "just gave me" does not work.

5. Interesting attempt to reverse, or avoid, the onus.

6. I did, in fact, ask you, personally, for sources for what you, personally, find so believable.

7. Why do you make free to put words in my mouth? "Fool" is your unique contribution to what I have actually said.

I missed the bolded part. Annoid was right to point out the absurdity of this. What on Earth is "objective proof that we love each other"?

I swear, I think some people here wouldn't cross the street without conducting a double-blind experiment.

"I love you, dear."
"What's that supposed to prove? You expect me to convince the guys at the plant with just anecdotes???"

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>

You're still not getting it.

By which you mean, I still do not believe as you would have me believe based upon your claims of your own subjective experiences.

What is your belief, on a given day at work, that your house is on fire? Very low. What would happen to the probability of your belief "my house is on fire" if your wife calls and tells you "the house is on fire!"?

A valid example, particularly given that houses, do, in fact, catch fire and burn. Given that houses do, in fact, catch fire and burn, if my partner were to call and say, "Our house is burning!", I would believe my partner's statement that a possible event was, in fact, happening, particularly given my partner's demonstrated lack of taste for practical jokes.

I might, in fact,wonder if my partner were mistaken, but I would not consider the report that a possible thing was, in fact, happening, impossible.

Asked to explain why I was asking to leave class immediately, and go home, I would likely report, "My partner says our house is on fire."

On the other hand, if my partner were (for instance) call me and say that my father had appeared in a dream and told my partner that our house was burning, I would not believe, on that anecdote alone, that an impossible event had, in fact happened, and would not, on the basis of that anecdote alone, be concerned that our house was burning.

Ask to explain why I was asking to leave class immediately, and go home, I would likely report, "My partner is having another anxiety attack, and I need to go help."

So yes, anecdotes are evidence and anecdotes can be very powerful evidence, especially if they're reported by people we know and trust.

...for sufficiently credulous values of "evidence. Not in any useful scientific application. Your belief in prophetic dreams,or messages from beyond, or natal moment horololgy, or chi gong is not, in any way, evidence for the existence of any of those; at best, your belief is evidence of your belief.

They can also be very weak forms of evidence, if the person is completely unreliable or the claim being made is fantastical. Just as scientific observations can be very weak evidence if the equipment is unreliable (faster than light neutrinos, anyone?).

Right. A fantastical anecdote ("ESP", anyone?) is unconvincing, even as an anecdote; an entire multitude of fantastical claims is no more than a collection of unconvincing anecdotes.

The above example can be explained by Bayes Theorem. The probability of the evidence (the anecdotal account from your wife that the house in on fire), is so surprising to you that the probability of your belief that the house is on fire (H) goes through the roof. As Pr(E) drops, Pr(H/E) rises.

No, not at all--read above.

You need look no further than Bill Cosby. One woman accusing him could have been explained away. Over 20 women, though? And all this happening AFTER the statute of limitations has expired? Are you going to claim that your belief that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist hasn't changed at all over the last six months?

In your world, has a man ever raped a woman? Anecdotes of credible events, events that have been demonstrated to happen, that have been observed to happen, are off a different class than anecdotes of events that have never been demonstrated to happen,and that seem to evaporate whenever investigated.

Do I "know" that Cosby is a rapist?

No.

Do I have an opinion? Given that, at best, I have anecdotal information, I have, at best, an opinion (not even a belief). I keep a clear distinction between what I know, and what I believe; between objective facts and my subjective opinions.

That millions of people believe (or at least, report belief) in 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods') is not evidence of the existence of 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods'); it is, at best,evidence of their belief.

Anyway, it's surprising enough evidence to ensure that Cosby's reputation will never recover from this. He'll remain a pariah the rest of his life. He's extremely lucky all these accusations happened after the statute of limitations expired.<snip>

So much for "innocent until proven guilty", eh? And, of course, in the history of western jurisprudence, it has never happened that women have falsely accused a man of rape.

Cosby may be culpable; but it would be foolish and careless (not to mention unsupportable, nor to say anything about honesty) for me to think, or say, or write, that my opinion was based on evidence.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever your credulity will swallow. You really ought to learn not to pretend that your beliefs represent reality, if and when all you have to "support" them in anecdote.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I missed the bolded part. Annoid was right to point out the absurdity of this. What on Earth is "objective proof that we love each other"?

I swear, I think some people here wouldn't cross the street without conducting a double-blind experiment.

"I love you, dear." "What's that supposed to prove? You expect me to convince the guys at the plant with just anecdotes???"

Whoosh.

Among other straw persons and reductia, this was said:

So when someone says “I love you’ we may all justifiably dismiss the claim because they cannot support it with any variety of objectively falsifiable evidence.

My explanation was to point out that I, at least, do not, in fact, judge my love for the love of my life with "objectively falsifiable evidence"; it is, in fact, a subjective state.

My reaction to any person who asked me for "objectively falsifiable evidence" that my partner does, in fact, love me, or that I do, in fact, love my partner, would be:

1. Establish strong eye contact, while keeping situational awareness;

2. Create physical separation, backing away and interposing obstacles between us;

3. Extend separation while maintaining eye contact;

4. At a sufficient distance, turn and walk away, listening for any indication of being followed.

The highlighted bit represents your own unique and idiosyncratic composition; it cannot be said to even be an honest attempt to characterize something that might, in fact, be representative of something I might say, nor be credibly attributed to me. One more person of straw for your entourage...

 

[Slowvehicle]

….where, precisely, did I say that anecdotal evidence is the equivalent of objective fact?

it is, in fact, to snerk.

Where, precisely, did I say that you said that "anecdotal evidence is the equivalent of objective fact"?

What I said…was that anecdotal evidence is legitimate evidence. Of what, exactly, is another matter entirely. In relation to anomalous psychological phenomena there are vast numbers of reported incidents. Given both the paucity of any scientifically credible explanations and the growing body of substantiating studies…it is reasonable for any skeptic to, at the least, take an agnostic position in relation to the issue.

Or, as I do, understand in which direction the onus lies.

I await objective evidence of "Ψ" phenomena under controlled conditions, with bated breath.

…perhaps you should quit while you’re behind.

You do realize what you’re desperately trying to avoid saying here. Don’t you? You’re saying that, though you love your wife, there is no reason for either you or her to trust this conclusion.

Actually, no, and it is remarkably dishonest of you to pretend so.

Read again.

I beleive that I love my partner. I beleive my partner loves me. I trust my partner with "my life, my fortune, and my sacred honour" (not to mention my tools, my musical instruments, and my cookbooks).

I do not, in any of that, pretend that my trust, and my belief, constitute "objectively falsifiable evidence" that we love each other.

I do not care if you believe that we love each other; nor would I try to "prove" it to you.

I do not pretend that my subjective, anecdotal experience represent "evidence" to anyone but me.

…so…at the end of the day, and re: the OP…it might be said that ESP may be taking a probability lead over alien life.<snip>

Actually, if you are going to insist on an agnostic pose, at best it can be said that, "at the end of the day", you, personally, believe that the possibility of "ESP" has, in your estimation, a higher probability than "advanced alien life".

So you’re saying that because we can’t do an experiment that can confirm / falsify the anecdotes, we must conclude that they are fraudulent????,snip>

"fraudulent????" is you own, unique contribution to what Dinwar actually posted.

You keep doing that...

<ESP-of-the-gaps-snip>Taken together…the above conclusions amount to a very unique area of study.<snip>

I have to know...is a "very unique" area of study more unique than a "unique" area of study?

 

[jt512]

In this, you make a critical error. Grue IS a defined term--you just don't know the definition. I would confidently not only bet my life savings, but my LIFE that there is no grue in my house. I actually do so on a regular basis. For that matter, I bet my wife's life and that of my infant son. To me, that ranks as "I know there is no grue", not just "I'm 0.XXXX confident there is no grue".

And that's my point about this Bayesian statistics stuff: you are confusing your knowledge with the limits of the system. Your math says NOTHING about the reality of the system itself; it merely describes YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the system--in a way that's obtuse, and which displays literally infinitely more precision than your knowledge of the system warrants.

The difference between paranormal "research" and actual scientific research is that paranormal research stops at the hypothesis-formulation stage. I'm willing to grant that an anecdote is sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis; however, it is NOT sufficient evidence to TEST a hypothesis. To test a hypothesis requires an experiment that is reproducible, which controls all known variables that can affect the outcome, etc. In this case, the standard is a double-blinded experiment.

Do you have any reports of double-blinded experiments conducted that demonstrate ESP to work? If not, we are forced to conclude that the anecdotes are based on some other cause than an unknown thing that violates the known laws of physics. Potential causes are nearly innumerable, ranging from outright fraud (the seances of previous centuries) to common mental errors (remembering hits, ignoring misses, that sort of thing). In actuality a rigorous scientific study would test for those prior to allowing the anecdotal evidence in, and would only accept those stories for which alternative causal mechanisms aren't in evidence, but I'm overly willing to get my hands dirty and measure the fish, as it were.

Without double-blinded trials showing a higher rate of success than chance, repeatedly, you don't actually have any evidence. You have stuff that can be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's the least-rigorous aspect of science--you can have a dream and formulate a hypothesis, or get so drunk you can't keep the beer in a can and formulate one (both revolutionized their fields). It's the rigorous testing that makes a methodology that's the critical aspect. Otherwise, cognitive errors creep in and we suddenly find ourselves hanging women because they're witches.

This post is what we in statistics call a target-rich environment. I'll get back to it in the morning when I can savor the experience along with a fresh cup of French press coffee.

 

[Brainache]

This post is what we in statistics call a target-rich environment. I'll get back to it in the morning when I can savor the experience along with a fresh cup of French press coffee.

I'm sure it will be grueling...

 

[Fudbucker]

By which you mean, I still do not believe as you would have me believe based upon your claims of your own subjective experiences.

I'm not trying to have you believe anything based on my experiences. Subjective probability has to do with how each individual updates their beliefs based on how they view evidence.

A valid example, particularly given that houses, do, in fact, catch fire and burn. Given that houses do, in fact, catch fire and burn, if my partner were to call and say, "Our house is burning!", I would believe my partner's statement that a possible event was, in fact, happening, particularly given my partner's demonstrated lack of taste for practical jokes.

I might, in fact,wonder if my partner were mistaken, but I would not consider the report that a possible thing was, in fact, happening, impossible.

Asked to explain why I was asking to leave class immediately, and go home, I would likely report, "My partner says our house is on fire."

On the other hand, if my partner were (for instance) call me and say that my father had appeared in a dream and told my partner that our house was burning, I would not believe, on that anecdote alone, that an impossible event had, in fact happened, and would not, on the basis of that anecdote alone, be concerned that our house was burning.

Ask to explain why I was asking to leave class immediately, and go home, I would likely report, "My partner is having another anxiety attack, and I need to go help."

Suppose your partner reported a fantastical claim. They swear up and down that while driving on a desolate road a UFO hovered over the car and then vanished. Not some bright light or helicopter, but something that doesn't resemble anything you see in the sky. Is the anecdote believable?

...for sufficiently credulous values of "evidence. Not in any useful scientific application. Your belief in prophetic dreams,or messages from beyond, or natal moment horololgy, or chi gong is not, in any way, evidence for the existence of any of those; at best, your belief is evidence of your belief.

My beliefs aren't evidence for anything, nor have I claimed they are. What we personally experience shapes our beliefs. If you had night after night of prophetic dreams, you would eventually conclude something very strange is going on. I might not conclude anything based on your testimony, but you certainly would update your beliefs, based on what happened to you.

Right. A fantastical anecdote ("ESP", anyone?) is unconvincing, even as an anecdote; an entire multitude of fantastical claims is no more than a collection of unconvincing anecdotes.

What makes a claim "fantastical"? Is it fantastical to claim I left my body while being resuscitated? What if I could accurately describe the resuscitation procedure? What if I accurately describe the sign on the high shelf? At what point does my account of what I saw stop being fantastical?

No, not at all--read above.

Yes. If your partner tells you your house is on fire, and you rush home, it's easy to show how your degree in belief that "the house is on fire" was confirmed by the evidence (the report from your partner).

In your world, has a man ever raped a woman? Anecdotes of credible events, events that have been demonstrated to happen, that have been observed to happen, are off a different class than anecdotes of events that have never been demonstrated to happen,and that seem to evaporate whenever investigated.

Do I "know" that Cosby is a rapist?

No.

Do I have an opinion? Given that, at best, I have anecdotal information, I have, at best, an opinion (not even a belief). I keep a clear distinction between what I know, and what I believe; between objective facts and my subjective opinions.

What you know is simply a collection of statements about the world that you believe to be true. The typical definition of knowledge is "a justified true belief". There are problems with this definition, but it's the standard one we use. If you were to write out what you "know", it would be a series of propositions with high degrees of belief attached to them: the Earth is round (.9999), OJ is a murderer (.95), Cosby is a rapist (.80). Everyone has their own personal cut-off for when a belief reaches a high enough confidence-level point where it's considered knowledge, but any piece of knowledge is just something that a person has assigned a "high" degree of belief to. We both might assign the same value to whether Cosby is a rapist or not, but one of us might be comfortable saying we "know" Cosby did it, while the other might still "have an open mind" about it.

That millions of people believe (or at least, report belief) in 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods') is not evidence of the existence of 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods'); it is, at best,evidence of their belief.

Of course.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty", eh? And, of course, in the history of western jurisprudence, it has never happened that women have falsely accused a man of rape.

Of course false accusations happen. What you have to do is compare the probability that so many women would come forward with so little to gain vs. the probability that Cosby is the victim of some bizarre conspiracy by all these women to convince the world he's this horrible monster. The latter is so outlandishly improbable that I've quite comfortable claiming he's been proven guilty already.

Like I said before, we already saw this play out with the Catholic Church. The molestation stories became so numerous that no rational person could believe it was all a conspiracy by these grown men to make the church look bad.

Cosby may be culpable; but it would be foolish and careless (not to mention unsupportable, nor to say anything about honesty) for me to think, or say, or write, that my opinion was based on evidence.

Of course it's based on evidence. The evidence is that a disparate large group of women, with nothing to gain, have all accused this one individual of horrible crimes. Is it possible they're all lying? Sure. Is it probable? No. It's very highly improbable, which makes it such strong evidence.

It's the same as when a dozen former altar boys all say they were molested by the same priest. I can't think of any cases, off-hand, where actual physical proof was used to convict a priest. The priests that were convicted either eventually plead guilty, or were found guilty based on the testimony of the kids they had molested.

Believe me, I'm aware of this being a male teacher. If one kid accused me of molesting them, that would be enough evidence to immediately remove me from the classroom. An accusation from just one former student might be enough to get me convicted. It's certainly happened before, and based on nothing more than personal testimony. If 20 of my former students, who didn't even know each other, made detailed allegations against me, I would stand no chance at all.

So yeah, the accusations against Cosby aren't only evidence, they're very powerful evidence.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever your credulity will swallow. You really ought to learn not to pretend that your beliefs represent reality, if and when all you have to "support" them in anecdote.

We all think the things we believe in represent reality, otherwise we wouldn't believe in them.

We directly observe very little of the world. Most of our knowledge comes from anecdotal accounts from people whom we regard as having no reason to lie. The private lives of my friends, for example, make up part of my knowledge about the world, but it's "supported" almost entirely on what they've told me about themselves. I simply assume they're being honest with me. Maybe my friend is lying about having early-stage bladder cancer. I didn't go to the doctor with him. I have no "support" for my belief about him other than what he's told me. He looks fine. But I don't think he would lie about it, so his anecdotal account is enough "support" for me to establish a high degree of belief that he does actually have cancer.

 

[Pixel42]

The critiques I have read of the Ganzfeld studies have led me to the opinion that they were not done carefully or methodically enough for their reported results to be reliable. That opinion is, however, based on a knowledge of Mathematics which is very rusty (I do have a degree in the subject but it was obtained 40 years ago).

Of one thing, however, I am sure: they do not support the claims made for ESP on the basis of anecdotal evidence. The reported effect, even if it does exist, is far too small to be detectable at all by individuals. So I would still consider the standard explanations of such anecdotes (fallible perceptions and memories, cognitive biases etc) to be far more likely than ESP, even if the Ganzfeld results were to be confirmed in more rigorous experiments.

 

[Daylightstar]

His ‘supposed authority’ !!!! ...

Yes, his stated 'authority' elevated by you. Don't worry about it, I understand why you did so.

...The issues directly relate to physics, mathematics, and statistical analysis. Please explain how the fact that he is a theoretical physicist is not relevant? ...

How does all that work, since:

...
what we are talking about here are subjective experiences. Please enlighten us if you have some secret science that has the capacity to, even remotely, directly adjudicate subjective experience.
...

It's whatever you need eh?

...
Did you actually read the rest of the post? If you are still so eager to establish the validity of the data (which I sincerely doubt…but feel free to prove me wrong), I’ll give you Maaneli’s email address and you can challenge him directly on the conclusions that he came to.
...

Has he, according to you, shown in that article, the data of the experiments he referred to, to be valid?

...
Thus…anecdotal evidence is, by default, a legitimate form of evidence.
...

All the anecdote telling in the world does not demonstrate ESP to exist.

...
So why do so many skeptics find it necessary to resort to creationist tactics?
...

Are creationists concerned with evidence and data as well?

...
So let me get this straight. You are saying that something does not occur unless it can be scientifically adjudicated.

Yes…or no.
...

ESP simply has not been demonstrated to actually occur or exist.

 

[Daylightstar]

Of course
...
and rightfully so.

None of that long post defines any probability for the ESP in your op.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
…so…at the end of the day, and re: the OP…it might be said that ESP may be taking a probability lead over alien life.
...

Anything can be said. Can it be shown?
In the case of ESP, I'm afraid not.

 

[Daylightstar]

…....(no idea why it doesn’t work…it worked for Daylightstar). ...

No it didn't. The page file name for the link you gave read:
"rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...ke-on-esp"
You had simply copied an optically shortened version and pasted that in your post.

I googled some of the text and found the article that way.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm not trying to have you believe anything based on my experiences. Subjective probability has to do with how each individual updates their beliefs based on how they view evidence.

Thank you.

At best, you are saying that the stories of paranormal powers convince you that there must be "real ESP"; to the poit that you,l personally, beleive that it is more probable that an "effect" which has not been demonstrated undercontrolled conditions is "more probable" than something which has, in fact, demonstrably happened at least once.

Were your OP about your belief, that would, could, and should be the end of it.

Suppose your partner reported a fantastical claim. They swear up and down that while driving on a desolate road a UFO hovered over the car and then vanished. Not some bright light or helicopter, but something that doesn't resemble anything you see in the sky. Is the anecdote believable?

is it believable that my partner saw something my partner could not identify in the shy? Of course, or my partner would not have related the experience to me.

Is my belief on my partner's statement that my partner could not identify the thing seen in the sky evidence that my partner witnessed a visit by a craft full of little grey people (re mi do do so)?

No.

My beliefs aren't evidence for anything, nor have I claimed they are. What we personally experience shapes our beliefs. If you had night after night of prophetic dreams, you would eventually conclude something very strange is going on. I might not conclude anything based on your testimony, but you certainly would update your beliefs, based on what happened to you.

OTH, what you, personally, seem to be suggesrting is that, were I to experience "night after night" of what I mistook to be "prophetic dreams", I should conclude that the "something very strange" going on was, in fact, that I was "prophesying" (which has never been demonstrated to happen) rather than experiencing one or another form of dementia (which is, in fact, common).

What makes a claim "fantastical"? Is it fantastical to claim I left my body while being resuscitated? What if I could accurately describe the resuscitation procedure? What if I accurately describe the sign on the high shelf? At what point does my account of what I saw stop being fantastical?

Congruence, fruitfulness, and luminosity.

(Repetition under controlled circumstances designed to isolate the chance of fraud, deceit, self-deceit, or error would help.)

Thus: a claim that a woman broke her husband's cheekbone with a soft-drink bottle is not fantastical; a claim that the "spirit" of Pault Tarsi told her to do so is fanstastical.

Yes. If your partner tells you your house is on fire, and you rush home, it's easy to show how your degree in belief that "the house is on fire" was confirmed by the evidence (the report from your partner).

No. There is no evidence that my house is on fire.

My personal experience that my partner is not given to rannygazoo; and that houses in national forests do, in fact, burn; and that new Mexico is,in fact, deep in drought; leads me to accept, prima facie, that my partner believes the house is burning.

I would not claim that my house was, in fact, on fire; nor could honestly say that I had evidence to support such a claim.

What you know is simply a collection of statements about the world that you believe to be true. The typical definition of knowledge is "a justified true belief".

Source, please.

There are problems with this definition, but it's the standard one we use. If you were to write out what you "know", it would be a series of propositions with high degrees of belief attached to them: the Earth is round (.9999), OJ is a murderer (.95), Cosby is a rapist (.80). Everyone has their own personal cut-off for when a belief reaches a high enough confidence-level point where it's considered knowledge, but any piece of knowledge is just something that a person has assigned a "high" degree of belief to. We both might assign the same value to whether Cosby is a rapist or not, but one of us might be comfortable saying we "know" Cosby did it, while the other might still "have an open mind" about it.

You have, again, attempted to put words in my mouth. Nothing new, and no more correct this time 'round.

Of course.

For 'gods'. read "ESP".

Same result.

Of course false accusations happen. What you have to do is compare the probability that so many women would come forward with so little to gain vs. the probability that Cosby is the victim of some bizarre conspiracy by all these women to convince the world he's this horrible monster. The latter is so outlandishly improbable that I've quite comfortable claiming he's been proven guilty already.

Then it is a good thing that most jurisprudential systems are more careful than you are.

Like I said before, we already saw this play out with the Catholic Church. The molestation stories became so numerous that no rational person could believe it was all a conspiracy by these grown men to make the church look bad.

Are you saying that any priest accused, anecdotally, of impropriety is, in fact, a child molester?

It must be difficult for you to find, and transact with, a bank; given all the anecdotal evidence of who is "really" running things.

Of course it's based on evidence.

Of course it is not, whan all there is is anecdote.

The evidence is that a disparate large group of women, with nothing to gain, have all accused this one individual of horrible crimes. Is it possible they're all lying? Sure. Is it probable? No. It's very highly improbable, which makes it such strong evidence.

At best, such a situation makes it credible to you. Should a man be fined, reviled, jailed, and punished for what you believe?

Anecdote does not become evidence just because you find it credible, or creditable.

It's the same as when a dozen former altar boys all say they were molested by the same priest. I can't think of any cases, off-hand, where actual physical proof was used to convict a priest. The priests that were convicted either eventually plead guilty, or were found guilty based on the testimony of the kids they had molested.

Believe me, I'm aware of this being a male teacher. If one kid accused me of molesting them, that would be enough evidence to immediately remove me from the classroom. An accusation from just one former student might be enough to get me convicted. It's certainly happened before, and based on nothing more than personal testimony. If 20 of my former students, who didn't even know each other, made detailed allegations against me, I would stand no chance at all.

So yeah, the accusations against Cosby aren't only evidence, they're very powerful evidence.

You are continuing your habit of equivocation, and of careless conflation.

We all think the things we believe in represent reality, otherwise we wouldn't believe in them.

We directly observe very little of the world. Most of our knowledge comes from anecdotal accounts from people whom we regard as having no reason to lie. The private lives of my friends, for example, make up part of my knowledge about the world, but it's "supported" almost entirely on what they've told me about themselves. I simply assume they're being honest with me. Maybe my friend is lying about having early-stage bladder cancer. I didn't go to the doctor with him. I have no "support" for my belief about him other than what he's told me. He looks fine. But I don't think he would lie about it, so his anecdotal account is enough "support" for me to establish a high degree of belief that he does actually have cancer.

Many of us are careful enough not to confuse what we know with what we believe.

ETA: Out of curiosity, what is it that you teach?

 

[Darat]

Fudbucker - I've read this entire thread since you started it and to me your position boils down to "I think I've had ESP experiences so that means ESP is more likely than advanced aliens because I've never had any experience of advanced aliens".

 

[Dinwar]

This post is what we in statistics call a target-rich environment. I'll get back to it in the morning when I can savor the experience along with a fresh cup of French press coffee.

I don't see how you can argue with the stats part. The thing with the grue boils down to "As long as I avoid actually learning anything about the system, I can pretend all outcomes are equally likely". It's been admitted numerous times--every time someone says "I don't know what a grue is", they are admitting to refusing to learn (we're online; Google exists). The instant you learn what a Grue is, you realize that all outcomes are not equal. Thus, the 50/50 nonsense is an expression of willful ignorance, and does not represent anything about the system itself.

I have yet to see any explanation for why it's better to present this equation than to simply admit you don't know what's being discussed and end it there, by the way. I have yet to see any justification for claiming to have knowledge about a system (and claiming that all outcomes are equally likely is claiming knowledge of the system).

As for the rest, it's standard stuff in science. The only way to argue against it is to argue that ESP should be treated special because............reasons. Or something.

If you had night after night of prophetic dreams, you would eventually conclude something very strange is going on.

Probably true. However, unlike you I wouldn't immediately go with "ESP is real". Humans remember hits and forget misses; it's so widely documented that to NOT know that fact is a sign of deplorable and inexcusable ignorance in an adult. So what I'd do is keep a record of the hits vs. the misses--and I would have some sort of criteria for what counts as a hit. For example, if I dream that my wife got run over by a semi, and then later that day my son runs her over with his toy semi, that wouldn't count as a hit--the two situations are so different as to be incomparable. If I dreamed I'd have french toast for breakfast and I did, I may count it if my wife made it, but not if I did--after all, my dream may have made me hungry for french toast, so the dream caused the event. See the problems you very rapidly run into? These sorts of cognitive biases are inherent in the human condition--we ALL have them. That's the reason for strict experimental protocols in science--they have been specifically tailored, over centuries, to counter or avoid entirely these biases. That's why anecdotes don't count as a test of a hypothesis--because there are simply too many cognitive biases that will creep in, particularly if you get the data second- or third-hand.

 

[jaydeehess]

Fudbucker - I've read this entire thread since you started it and to me your position boils down to "I think I've had ESP experiences so that means ESP is more likely than advanced aliens because I've never had any experience of advanced aliens".

Personal credulity or incredulity has no relevance in a scientific determination of relative probabilities.
IMHO

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't see how you can argue with the stats part. The thing with the grue boils down to "As long as I avoid actually learning anything about the system, I can pretend all outcomes are equally likely". It's been admitted numerous times--every time someone says "I don't know what a grue is", they are admitting to refusing to learn (we're online; Google exists). The instant you learn what a Grue is, you realize that all outcomes are not equal. Thus, the 50/50 nonsense is an expression of willful ignorance, and does not represent anything about the system itself.

I have yet to see any explanation for why it's better to present this equation than to simply admit you don't know what's being discussed and end it there, by the way. I have yet to see any justification for claiming to have knowledge about a system (and claiming that all outcomes are equally likely is claiming knowledge of the system).

As for the rest, it's standard stuff in science. The only way to argue against it is to argue that ESP should be treated special because............reasons. Or something. Probably true. However, unlike you I wouldn't immediately go with "ESP is real". Humans remember hits and forget misses; it's so widely documented that to NOT know that fact is a sign of deplorable and inexcusable ignorance in an adult. So what I'd do is keep a record of the hits vs. the misses--and I would have some sort of criteria for what counts as a hit. For example, if I dream that my wife got run over by a semi, and then later that day my son runs her over with his toy semi, that wouldn't count as a hit--the two situations are so different as to be incomparable. If I dreamed I'd have french toast for breakfast and I did, I may count it if my wife made it, but not if I did--after all, my dream may have made me hungry for french toast, so the dream caused the event. See the problems you very rapidly run into? These sorts of cognitive biases are inherent in the human condition--we ALL have them. That's the reason for strict experimental protocols in science--they have been specifically tailored, over centuries, to counter or avoid entirely these biases. That's why anecdotes don't count as a test of a hypothesis--because there are simply too many cognitive biases that will creep in, particularly if you get the data second- or third-hand.

Nommed, particularly the highlighted bit.

May I use it in my classes?

May I excerpt one of the sig-worthy bits?

 

[Dinwar]

Nommed, particularly the highlighted bit.

May I use it in my classes?

May I excerpt one of the sig-worthy bits?

I would be honored, on both counts.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't see how you can argue with the stats part. The thing with the grue boils down to "As long as I avoid actually learning anything about the system, I can pretend all outcomes are equally likely". It's been admitted numerous times--every time someone says "I don't know what a grue is", they are admitting to refusing to learn (we're online; Google exists). The instant you learn what a Grue is, you realize that all outcomes are not equal. Thus, the 50/50 nonsense is an expression of willful ignorance, and does not represent anything about the system itself.

That's where you're making your mistake: jt512 isn't talking about the outcome as being 50/50, but the prior probability -- the beginning of the equation -- as being 50/50. No one yet (on either side) has taken the prior probability and begun to build the actual BT with evidence. Those who claim knowledge of BT like Fudbucker have steadfastly refused to do even this much.

I have yet to see any explanation for why it's better to present this equation than to simply admit you don't know what's being discussed and end it there, by the way. I have yet to see any justification for claiming to have knowledge about a system (and claiming that all outcomes are equally likely is claiming knowledge of the system).

As I said, other posters may be talking about outcomes but so far I haven't yet read that jt512 has talked about outcomes.

 

[Nonpareil]

My beliefs aren't evidence for anything, nor have I claimed they are. What we personally experience shapes our beliefs. If you had night after night of prophetic dreams, you would eventually conclude something very strange is going on. I might not conclude anything based on your testimony, but you certainly would update your beliefs, based on what happened to you.

You assume that everyone else would cease to behave rationally if something slightly odd happened to them just because you do.

Hint: we wouldn't.

What makes a claim "fantastical"?

Word games.