Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[Ed Glosser]

It's very important to remember that we're all stupid, that our minds play tricks on us, that our senses and memories are unreliable.

I bet you wouldn't say that if I had come to the same conclusions as you, though. I've learned over the years that when scientists and skeptics say "we're stupid", or "humans" are stupid, they really mean "other people are stupid".

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, here's a list of some of the more common and better-understood flaws in human reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Skeptics always assume that believers never saw a list of cognitive biases, just like woos believe skeptics would be pursuaded if they only saw this or that documentary or (newspaper article about a) research paper.

But, alright. Thank you.

We have to constantly be on guard against these problems to make progress. That's what science is all about.

Yes, but science is not what life is all about. If I have to choose between truth and the beliefs of a scientific community that can't acknowledge that it even has beliefs, it's not even a choice.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, there's no consistent correlation, I guess, but there's movement of planets and there's actions and events concerning humans on earth, and they take place at the same time. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, I'm crazy, but do you see what I'm getting at?

There's no correlation, no connection. Stuff just happens.

As I said, if we take a look to see how well astrology works, we find that it doesn't work at all. It is impossible, but it also doesn't work.

You look at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, get a sudden premonition, and call your friend and tell her that her runaway dog is coming back in twenty minutes, which it does. What was the connection between the Mona Lisa and the dog coming back? Was there even one?

You look at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, get a sudden premonition, and call your friend and tell her that her runaway dog is coming back in twenty minutes, and she says her dog never ran away, and is currently sleeping on the sofa. What was the connection between the Mona Lisa and you being wrong?

 

[PixyMisa]

I bet you wouldn't say that if I had come to the same conclusions as you, though. I've learned over the years that when scientists and skeptics say "we're stupid", or "humans" are stupid, they really mean "other people are stupid".

Science only progresses by carefully controlling for human stupidity.

Skeptics always assume that believers never saw a list of cognitive biases, just like woos believe skeptics would be pursuaded if they only saw this or that documentary or (newspaper article about a) research paper.

We don't assume that. We do note, however, that believers invariably believe precisely because they have not accounted for cognitive biases.

Yes, but science is not what life is all about. If I have to choose between truth and the beliefs of a scientific community that can't acknowledge that it even has beliefs, it's not even a choice.

But that's not the choice, is it? iPhones exist. Souls do not.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Here's your problem: We know that souls cannot possibly exist. You can never relate your position to scientific truths, because it is not a scientific position.

What you need to do is re-evaluate the evidence that led you to your belief, using proper scientific methods. Are you willing to do that?

You are saying that people who study things like mediumship, ESP and other woo areas don't use proper scientific methods. I disagree.

Now, how can I know if they're using proper scientific methods when I, not being a scientist or versed in science, am in no position to judge that? Well, I can only put my faith in other people and their assessment. Since I don't find skeptics to be neutral and having a good understanding, beyond recognizing purely logical errors, of how their own inner workings can lead them astray, I've tried to find more neutral informants to help me out.

But it's not just that. I don't think science can answer every question, unless you allow for the method to adapt to situations and possibilities that require special treatment, just like some children have special needs.

It's still a great video. It gave me a lot to think about.

PS But if you were going to follow up my 'yes' with a tangible suggestion, I'd still like to hear it, if I didn't just blow my chances...

 

[Ed Glosser]

Naturally, that's what catches your eye. A number of things, in short, none of which, either individually or combined, make a decent case that there actually is anything supernatural. As a general rule, though, I'm quite conservative with my conclusions and there are very few things that I'm firmly convinced about, especially when it comes to unfalsifiable propositions. For example, I don't say that young earth creationism, in general, was not the case, but I do very much say that the arguments for it being the case, that I've seen, are incredibly bad. As a rule, I can also say that the arguments that I've seen show off incredible ignorance and/or dishonesty, regarding either of or both of logic and science. I do say that, given this, it is not reasonable to accept young earth creationism, in general, as the case.

Does that clarify things at all?

I'll be honest, that was the most confusing thing I've ever read. You can't write off young earth creationism without pause?

That's admirable, but I'll never get it. Good on you, though. I don't even know what their arguments are, but I know they're wrong.

Good on you. You're a true skeptic.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Yes, it matters. That's the whole reason this forum exists.

But was that really what you intended with the thread?

 

[Slowvehicle]

We'll just have to disagree to agree.

Well, no.

"Agreeing to disagree" would imply that two equally valid views were in conflict.

You can continue in your unsupported claims of woo!perstition.

I can continue in my realization that what exists can be supported with evidence. "Reincarnation" has never been demonstrated to exist. "Psychic phenomena" have never been demonstrated to exist. When tested, each disappears, supported only by the excuses of those tested.

Not only that, no plausible mechanism for either has ever been proposed.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Purpose, by its nature, is assigned. Whether it's assigned by oneself or someone or something else is irrelevant at that level. The arguments that it's both better and more meaningful when assigned by oneself tend to be better, though.

Yes, it certainly was easier when I believed that the only purpose of anyone's life was whatever they want it to be. There's less pressure in that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Like I said, I respect your position on this. I'm sure you've studied what us woos call the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I respect that.

No, you condescend to it, pretending that the fault is in reason and rational thought rather than in your anecdotes.

Feel free to continue to avoid the point, but you ought to realize that dark hints at what "you woo!s" accept as evidence, fails to be actual evidence, for a plethora of reasons.

Come on! I'm trying to lose weight here! Don't start talking to me about cookies. You bastard.

Well, manly repartee is one way to avoid facing the issue, I suppose.

Ponder my Biscochito recipe, or my Piñon Polvorones, or my Chocolate/Peppermint Pinwheels...

(FWIW, my parents were, in fact, married when I was conceived.)

 

[Ed Glosser]

You look at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, get a sudden premonition, and call your friend and tell her that her runaway dog is coming back in twenty minutes, and she says her dog never ran away, and is currently sleeping on the sofa. What was the connection between the Mona Lisa and you being wrong?

Just to be clear, are you saying that, during the course of human history, there has never been an incident where someone has predicted something that later came true? Or are you saying that such predictions were made and came true, but it was in fact due to chance and not psychic ability?

There's an ocean of difference there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's charming that you think that I think it's a secret.

Oh, my bad. I was under the impression that it was, in fact, you who posted...

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

...I'll read more carefully from now on.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Not only that, no plausible mechanism for either has ever been proposed.

Right there, when you say "no plausible mechanism", you are making a subjective evaluation of scientific work that I see no reason to blow off so easily.

I've read many skeptical accounts of parapsychological studies and they are not convincing to me. However, there is no point in denying that your side of the argument stands as the winner. Majority rules, or in this case, an informed minority whose efforts mankind depend on.

I mean the scientists. But you guys are great too.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. What I mean is, things happen in a person's life and, simultaneously, planets are in certain positions. Sorry if I made it sound like something else.

The cause, then, is the same thing that caused everything to happen and to play out the way it has, does and will. I guess this is called Deism, if anyone wants to be picky and label things.

What, then, would the planets and their positions actually have to do with our daily doings? Technically, nothing, but someone might still interpret their states in a way that matches things going on in a person's life, the way they do it with a crystal ball or tea leaves, or what have you.

If you believe in that kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

 

[Aridas]

I bet you wouldn't say that if I had come to the same conclusions as you, though. I've learned over the years that when scientists and skeptics say "we're stupid", or "humans" are stupid, they really mean "other people are stupid".

It probably would not have come up, unless there was direct reason to bring it up, as happens occasionally. Memory is quite fallible, though, and that's very much worth remembering when it comes to any claims.

Skeptics always assume that believers never saw a list of cognitive biases, just like woos believe skeptics would be pursuaded if they only saw this or that documentary or (newspaper article about a) research paper.

But, alright. Thank you.

Odd. I've never assumed such a thing that I can recall, and I'm pretty sure that I could be called a skeptic. A number of believers indeed haven't seen such lists, though, and very much have not even tried to counter those biases in the interest of a more complete and accurate understanding.

Yes, but science is not what life is all about.

Odd. PixyMisa didn't even remotely say that science is what life is all about, so this is a bit pointless.

If I have to choose between truth and the beliefs of a scientific community that can't acknowledge that it even has beliefs, it's not even a choice.

You seem to be holding an odd caricature of what you call a scientific community close, here. Either way, it sounds a little bit like you've seen at least a few cases where those who you acknowledge as "woos" were trying to engage in false equivalence when it comes to the word belief when arguing with more skeptical people. As it is, for example, one could say that I believe in the modern version of the Theory of Biological Evolution, just like one could say that a particular Mormon believes in the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. It's superficially true, but very much misleading, at best. More accurately, I "accept" the Theory of Biological Evolution because the current reliable evidence and valid arguments at our disposal overwhelmingly support it, but hold little to no emotional attachment to it. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is apparently very much contradicted by the reliable evidence at our disposal and the Mormon generally does hold a strong emotional attachment to it. In short, they have faith.

If the truth you refer to is that you remember having particular experiences, there's not much to argue with, there. If you want others to accept your interpretation, however, that's when things tend to get more difficult for you. The scientific community tends to be harsh on... pretty much everyone. The ones with valid evidence and logic are the ones that succeed most, though.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Where did this come from? Yes, I do have an open mind about many things woo, based on personal experiences and studying the subject for some time. I believe in reincarnation, based on-- well, does it even matter?

Yes, yes it does. If you beleive in reincarnation because you have evidence of a mechanism by which a consciousness can survive independently of the neurosystem of which it was an emergent property, then I want to learn about it.

If you believe in reincarnation because your woo!perstition comforts you, then I have no need of it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You got me there, to a degree. I shouldn't propose to speak for anyone but myself. That was wrong.

To answer your questions:

1. Parapsychological studies and personal (anecdotal) evidence
2. Life after death and the recycling of souls; ESP comes with the territory
3. That there is purpose in life and that death is nothing to fear

Are these your evidence, or your conclusions?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, there's no consistent correlation, I guess, but there's movement of planets and there's actions and events concerning humans on earth, and they take place at the same time. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, I'm crazy, but do you see what I'm getting at?

You look at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, get a sudden premonition, and call your friend and tell her that her runaway dog is coming back in twenty minutes, which it does. What was the connection between the Mona Lisa and the dog coming back? Was there even one?

...do you understand the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy? Do you understand the similar "New Mexico Tourist" fallacy?

 

[Ed Glosser]

Yes, yes it does. If you beleive in reincarnation because you have evidence of a mechanism by which a consciousness can survive independently of the neurosystem of which it was an emergent property, then I want to learn about it.

If you believe in reincarnation because your woo!perstition comforts you, then I have no need of it.

I'm not gonna post a bunch of links to Ian Stevenson and whatnot. What's the point in that? You've already read about regression therapy and all that, and you've come to a different conclusion than I have.

It would be hubris to believe that I can influence your thoughts by sharing my ideas of how reincarnation might work, and I'm not in the mood for ridicule, so I'm just gonna not do it.

The intellectually honest thing for you to do here is to admit that I'm right about where this discussion would be heading. Am I wrong in assuming there is no evidence and no theories that could sway your mind?

What would that be? That's the million dollar question skeptics never answer, because that locks you into something you can't take back.

But, please. Prove me wrong.

What would you accept as evidence for reincarnation?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, but science is not what life is all about. If I have to choose between truth and the beliefs of a scientific community that can't acknowledge that it even has beliefs, it's not even a choice.

How can it be "truth", if it contradicts evidence?

How is it a "belief", if it is supported by evidence?

I get a lot of mileage out of telling the woo!perstitious that I, a biology teacher, don't "believe" in evolution...

 

[Ed Glosser]

Are these your evidence, or your conclusions?

There were three questions given to me and those there, them are tree answers to those three questions. Go back and check what the questions were, if you can be bothered.