Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

[Bronze Dog]

But he does touch upon a far better subject. Because, if we are to follow Ian's "logic" here, then obviously, the probability of the REAL Santa Claus existing is pretty damn high. I mean, think about all those shopping mall santas spread out in the Western world and beyond. And in some countries (like Norway), the Santa variation even makes a personal appearance (i.e a father or grandpa or uncle in costume). If we assume 5% of the Norwegian population dressing up for Christmas Eve (Yes, we do the present thing on Christmas Eve.), that's almost 250 000 fake Santas in Norway alone! And I can tell you, we certainly don't have that many fraudulent psychics about by far. Add half a million of Swedish "tomtegubber" (which is close enough), and even without all those malls in the USA etc, the real Santa's practically certain!

So according to Ian's way of thinking, it is more likely for a genuine Santa Claus to exist than for a genuine psychic to exist. Who knew?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

That's a false analogy of course. People simply need to do a bit of thinking here. If we live in a world which doesn't correspond exactly to how contemporary science paints it, and people on odd occasions do indeed get information through some means defying any sort of mechanistic explanation i.e anomalous cognition or ESP, then people claiming they can obtain such information almost at will is not going to sound all that implausible.This is especially so if these people being fooled by these charlatans have personally undergone such experiences.

In other words, "if genuine psychic phenomena exist, despite the masses of evidence that suggest that they're all fraudulent, then genuine psychic phenomena exist."

Wow.

And If I had a purple dragon in my desk drawer, I would have a dragon in my desk drawer. Therefore, I want all of you to believe in my dragon.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

In other words, "if genuine psychic phenomena exist, despite the masses of evidence that suggest that they're all fraudulent, then genuine psychic phenomena exist."

Wow.

And If I had a purple dragon in my desk drawer, I would have a dragon in my desk drawer. Therefore, I want all of you to believe in my dragon.

You've completely misunderstood my argument. I'm arguing that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

You've completely misunderstood my argument. I'm arguing that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

Why?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
That's a false analogy of course. People simply need to do a bit of thinking here. If we live in a world which doesn't correspond exactly to how contemporary science paints it, and people on odd occasions do indeed get information through some means defying any sort of mechanistic explanation i.e anomalous cognition or ESP, then people claiming they can obtain such information almost at will is not going to sound all that implausible.This is especially so if these people being fooled by these charlatans have personally undergone such experiences.

It still sounds implausible, because true ESP experiences, if any, are so rare that they have no discernible affect on how the world works.

On the other hand if we lived in the world where nobody ever had ever experienced any paranormal phenomena, then somebody claiming that they can contact dead people at will, or foresee the future, are whatever, will sound that much more implausible.

I'll grant you that if no one had ever made up the idea of ESP, then the first person to do so would sound like he was uttering an implausibility. But that event already happened millennia ago. Now that we have ESP and dozens of other great paranormal talents embedded in our culture, their apparent plausibility or implausibility has nothing to do with their actual existence.

~~ Paul

 

[Bronze Dog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

You've completely misunderstood my argument. I'm arguing that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

"Are you familiar with the old robot saying 'Does not compute.'?" -Bender B. Rodriguez

Besides, how is that different from someone arguing that all the fraudulent Santas makes the existence of a genuine Santa more likely?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dog said:
Besides, how is that different from someone arguing that all the fraudulent Santas makes the existence of a genuine Santa more likely?

I think Ian is trying to say that if some people believe they have had genuine psychic experiences, then those people will not be surprised at phony psychics, and so may actually believe in them. In this case, the Santa analogy is flawed because no one believes they have had actual Santa experiences, except perhaps some young children, who don't count.

However, the analogy does work for every other "paranormal" thing that people believe they have experienced, and so Ian must accept every paranormal thing that even a small group of people believe in. This includes paranormal things that have cropped up recently, such as crop circles and chemtrails. Ian's logic does not require that people actually be correct in their beliefs.

~~ Paul

 

[Dorfl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If we live in a world which doesn't correspond exactly to how contemporary science paints it, and people on odd occasions do indeed get information through some means defying any sort of mechanistic explanation i.e anomalous cognition or ESP, then people claiming they can obtain such information almost at will is not going to sound all that implausible.

Aren't you confusing cause and effect here?
Even if it is true that the existence of ESP would make people feel that ESP is plausible, I don't see how that can be reversed into saying that people feeling ESP is plausible makes ESP exist.
Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Nucular]

Okay, I'm resisting the temptation to derail and try to defend my analogies, so I'll just link this and press on ...

However, the analogy does work for every other "paranormal" thing that people believe they have experienced, and so Ian must accept every paranormal thing that even a small group of people believe in. This includes paranormal things that have cropped up recently, such as crop circles and chemtrails. Ian's logic does not require that people actually be correct in their beliefs.

Although, to be fair to Ian, he didn't say that he fully accepts it solely because of the fact that there are fraudulent psychics - he merely said that he considers that it increases the probability that there are.

So really, he's saying it's a piece of indicative evidence, presumably very mildly indicative.

I still think even this is wrong, though.

It boils down to him saying that if people are going around pretending to be psychics, then that would be more plausible if there were real psychics to emulate. But this just skirts around the question of where the belief came from in the first place, which is a whole nother discussion which we'd need to have - if the idea is there to start with, there doesn't have to be real psychics to emulate, it would simply be people cashing in on an existing notion. So it comes down to "where did the belief in psychics come from, real psychics or somewhere else?" which is pretty much where we were in the first place.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Agreed, Nucular, Ian isn't required to accept every idea people believe, but he is required to think their beliefs make the ideas more plausible.

For example, as soon as a few people say they have experienced chemtrails that "are clearly not contrails," then Ian must think it becomes somewhat plausible that chemtrails really are chemicals being sprayed for mind control or vaccination or whatever.

Which brings up the point: Is it more plausible that they are for mind control or vaccination or ... ?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Imagine 2 universes A and B. Universe A is exactly like what 17th-century intellectuals thought reality was like; namely as depicted by the mechanistic philosophy where all change in the world could only come about through the actual impact of particles. No quantum mechanics, no electricity, and certainly no anomalous cognition (ESP). These things would all be utterly impossible because change in the world can only come about through the actual contact of 2 bodies impacting upon one another.

If we lived in such a world how many fraudulent psychics would there be? I suggest very few indeed, if any. The reason being is that people simply wouldn't believe that they genuinely have the abilities they claim. Their experience of reality would form their common-sense assumptions about what is possible.

Universe B, on the other hand, is exactly like our world. Instant communication is possible eg the net, telephone etc, and many other seemingly miraculous things are possible. In addition people occasionally experience what they consider to be anomalous acquisition of information (ESP). Now it is clear in such a Universe that fraudulent psychics are much more likely to be believed. Yes? People think they experience ESP, they have thought it throughout history and across all cultures. So obviously someone claiming to be able to do it at will is not going to sound all that implausible.

In Universe B you are absolutely bound to get fraudulent psychics because that's what many people are like -- namely people like to make lots of money; if not by legitimate means, then by dishonest means.

But Universe B nevertheless is still more likely to harbour genuine psychics than Universe A. After all, in Universe B people tend to experience what they consider to be ESP all the time. Maybe they're mistaken, or maybe not, but the very fact that people do have these experiences makes it more likely that it exists than if no-one ever had such experiences (as in Universe A). Also the wonders of modern technology might tend to make people feel that something like telepathy is not that much of a big deal (although they are mistaken in this).

 

[Bronze Dog]

If we lived in such a world (without psi) how many fraudulent psychics would there be? I suggest very few indeed, if any. The reason being is that people simply wouldn't believe that they genuinely have the abilities they claim. Their experience of reality would form their common-sense assumptions about what is possible.

I would think there'd be plenty of frauds. Unless the absence of psi inhibits gullibility and spooky-seeming coincidences.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
But Universe B nevertheless is still more likely to harbour genuine psychics than Universe A. After all, in Universe B people tend to experience what they consider to be ESP all the time. Maybe they're mistaken, or maybe not, but the very fact that people do have these experiences makes it more likely that it exists than if no-one ever had such experiences (as in Universe A). Also the wonders of modern technology might tend to make people feel that something like telepathy is not that much of a big deal (although they are mistaken in this).

First, you do not know whether people in universe A would claim to have psychic experiences.

Second, the reasons you give for why people in universe B might believe in ESP---instant communication and other miraculous things---are not the reasons why you have claimed that ESP actually exists. People, including yourself, are apparently extrapolating from instant communication to psychic ability.

Therefore I see no reason why people in universe A wouldn't do the same, using whatever miraculous things they had invented in their universe.

I'm sure that intelligent beings can make all sorts of stuff up, regardless of the actual nature of their universe. That is because the reasons why people make stuff up transcend trivialities like the question of what is actually possible.

~~ Paul

P.S.: There is no universe like your universe A.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Note also that people's beliefs in the 17th Century (and before) about the way the world was did not prevent them from believing in telepathy, specifically in precognition.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

First, you do not know whether people in universe A would claim to have psychic experiences.

As I have made clear it would be astonishing if they did make such claims. First of all ESP doesn't exist in such a Universe. Secondly all change in the Universe comes through impact of bodies. So not only would they have to radically misinterpret an experience, they would have to misinterpret it despite their common sense assumptions about how the world must operate.

Second, the reasons you give for why people in universe B might believe in ESP---instant communication and other miraculous things---are not the reasons why you have claimed that ESP actually exists.

People believe mainly because of their own experiences of ESP and other peoples they know who have experienced ESP. Modern technology just makes it all a bit easier to believe.

The reason why ESP exists is because there is no reason why it shouldn't. What is it that makes a self closed off from all other selves?

People, including yourself, are apparently extrapolating from instant communication to psychic ability.

Huh?? I'm not. Other people might well be.

Therefore I see no reason why people in universe A wouldn't do the same, using whatever miraculous things they had invented in their universe.

Their technology will be extremely limited. For example the majority of our modern technology works because QM accurately characterises reality. All their technology would be equivalent to clockwork mechanisms.

I'm sure that intelligent beings can make all sorts of stuff up, regardless of the actual nature of their universe. That is because the reasons why people make stuff up transcend trivialities like the question of what is actually possible.

No, you have to look at the dynamics of belief formation.

P.S.: There is no universe like your universe A.

That's totally unimportant. WE could have lived in such a Universe. But because either by chance, or by "God's" will, we don't.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Note also that people's beliefs in the 17th Century (and before) about the way the world was did not prevent them from believing in telepathy, specifically in precognition.

~~ Paul

Huh?? People who subscribed to the mechanistic philosophy couldn't believe in telepathy or precognition! At least not without being flagrantly inconsistent!

Of course I invite you to prove me wrong. Name some of these people in the 17th century who subscribed to the mechanical philosophy but also believed in telepathy and precognition.

I await your reply in eager anticipation.

 

[El_Spectre]

And thus is illustrated the difference between someone being clever and someone thinking themself clever.

 

[Bronze Dog]

As I have made clear it would be astonishing if they did make such claims. First of all ESP doesn't exist in such a Universe. Secondly all change in the Universe comes through impact of bodies. So not only would they have to radically misinterpret an experience, they would have to misinterpret it despite their common sense assumptions about how the world must operate.

Big, big problem with this analogy: It assumes common sense is common.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

I'm arguing that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

No.
(tm, PixyMisa 2004-4005)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm arguing that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

Does this work with other subjects as well? Does the existence of fraudulent superheroes (movie characters) make the existence of genuine superheroes more likely?


BTW, for those new to Ian, Ian is one of those afflicted with TBS. It's somewhat pointless to argue with him, unless you like having fun at him. He has posted, several times, that there is no amount of evidence or logic that could affect his beliefs in the paranormal.