'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[turtle]

Aussie Thinker wrote:

Turtle,

You are walking through the hot desert and in the distance you see a pool of water. Thirsty, you head towards it, as you approach, it is no longer there. What is the explanation for the disappearance of the pool of water?

1-There really was a pool of water there, but it all evaporated just before I could reach it.

2-It was the ghost of a pool of water and vanished before I could reach it.

3-You experienced a mirage, which is:
an optical effect that is sometimes seen at sea, in the desert, or over a hot pavement, that may have the appearance of a pool of water or a mirror in which distant objects are seen inverted, and that is caused by the bending or reflection of rays of light by a layer of heated air of varying density.

Which explanation is the most rational? Which explanation would a skeptic choose, and which do you think a believer would choose?

ROF, amazing. Wow.

First of all, since it's a risk that one would see a mirage in the desert, and people see them quite often in those conditions, and don't often see ghosts, especially "the ghost of a pool of water," (LOL) it wouldn't occur to me that I'm seeing ghosts. I would occur to me that I'm in very deep trouble, since the water I am so longing for is not as close to me as I thought, and I'm going to die if I don't get some right quick.

That, and I hate the desert, so my being out there in the first place is pretty remote.

 

[jj]

Wow. I bow to what you say you have. Can't believe it though, it's just anecdotal. Merely your say so. Prove it.

So, we see the truth coming out. The information you seek is readily available at the bottom of every post I make.

Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.

Remember, whenever you want to try to move ahead, you know where to find help.

Until you work on the repeatability, falsifiablity, and so on, you're going to get nowhere.

You might start by reading some basic psychological literature on memory, perception, and learning. That might help settle on the language at least.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If in doubt, move the goalposts yet again!

Not at all. Anecdotes were never evidence, and they still aren't. Relating a story about a child is not evidence.

I simply related a relevant anecdote that I was aware of and witnessed first hand.

Which is an anecdote, which is not evidence of what I asked for.

Now, would you care to address the point in hand which was that you are demanding evidence of adult belief when previously it was all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

Children believe in all sorts of things. Should I include their pet rocks too? They don't have a fully adjusted brain that is capable of understanding how the world works. Adults only please. Got any examples yet?

Excuse me!!??? The "default position" is that we

Yes. There is no evidence for anyone, ever, seriously thinking the moon is made out of green cheese. I've offered to be proved wrong. Evidence would do that. Got any?

Dude, go see a shrink!

That's simply ad hominem. Got any evidence? Why not?

Really?

Yes.

Firstly, please point out to me where someone said/did that.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870400859#1870400859

"They were found in the astrology books I have access to."

And even someone had said that (which I don't believe anyone did),

He looked at the books he had access to. He didn't randomly sample from a larger population of charts.

wouldn't the number of books he had available be a factor?

Let's hear what you have to say about that. I'll wait.

I presume you know precisely how many books he had available? Silly question, of course you do, being omniscient and all... Why don't you just tell me how many books that was?

Irrelevant. He got 7 astrological charts via a convenience sample.

even if the above was true, isn't it exceptionally trivial in comparison to your own claim?

Do you see the way your posts go? You try to cover every possibility, with every possibility being a negative outcome for me. ie. 'find evidence, I doubt you can', 'if you do find the evidence, your interpretation is wrong because of x y and z.' 'But if x y or z happen to be true, then your claim is still insignificant'.

You are simply biased and don't let the evidence lead you to a conclusion; you already have your conclusion prior to the evidence.

Isn't an (alleged) population of astrologers somewhat smaller than the population of all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

Certainly.

We have your allegation that a claim based on a sample size of 7 was extended to a population of all astrologers.

Claus says the inference was to the population of astrologers that uses such compatibility charts. Even so, making inferences to any population is not legit going by how he sampled. The evidence for this is found in many introductory stats. books that tell you when you can and cannot infer.

Against that we have your claim (in which the sample size is not stated at all) extended to all people, ever, in the history of the universe. Which do you think is the more improbable?

What exactly is my claim?

I await your explanation of how you obtained a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe...

When did I ever state I could "obtain a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe"? Please show me the exact quote.

Do all proverbs have to state real life examples in order to be meaningful?

Still waiting for someone who really believes the moon is made from green cheese. The matter of the evidence still eludes you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.

Calling people provacateurs is not being provoking?

 

[CFLarsen]

Hmm... well, for the record, I don't believe in psychic powers, weak or otherwise. However, I think I should point out that if there really are weak powers, your comment may not be valid.

We all know that the odds favor the house, which is how they make their money. But - would the casinos even notice someone who broke even as opposed to someone who wins consistently and walks out with a profit? I think they're focused on the "winners" - and probably only the consistent ones, at that.

Someone who "breaks even" is beating the odds on a regular basis, though. If the inconsistency of "weak powers" gave someone only slightly better odds , a casino-going "weak" psychic might only lose a very little... or perhaps break even.

Ergo, no big winners - just someone who's not a loser.

I see your point. However, if you just would break even, there's not much point in gambling anyway. If you keep on walking out with a profit, surely there must be at least a few who couldn't just stop when they had won a few hundred bucks. And those people would be noticed.

You walk out from a casino with $50,000, you are bound to get noticed. Think the casinos don't exchange information on big winners? You bet they do.

 

[CFLarsen]

Isn't that proving a negative? I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal. I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing. I was there, you weren't. I can't prove it, sure, but you cannot disprove I didn't see a ghost. Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

How do you suggest we test for ghosts?

 

[CFLarsen]

Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese.

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the questions:

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

 

[CFLarsen]

Speaking of claims, etc., head to SC to see some discussion of ones Claus has made: Girl6 created SC for skeptics to be uncivil, a letter from Randi is a fake, and several others. I'm sure you'll point these claims, which demand evidence, out to Claus, right? Right?

...

Pointing out factual errors, for example, typos on SkepticReport, is not "defaming". You are, as you often are on here, being dramatic.

...

"Jeff", over at the SC, whoever he is, was quite rude recently. I've never said anything even approaching that level. Nor have I called people fly excrement, for example, like another person here. But, you'll defend your buddies.. that's emotional human nature instead of dispassionate reasoning.

Take your petty personal wars elsewhere.

 

[edthedoc]

I've got a slight infection at the moment.

Does that make me a septic skeptic?

 

[CFLarsen]

I've got a slight infection at the moment.

Does that make me a septic skeptic?

If you clean a wound, are you an antiseptic skeptic?

 

[Chocolate Chip]

ROF, amazing. Wow.

First of all, since it's a risk that one would see a mirage in the desert, and people see them quite often in those conditions, and don't often see ghosts, especially "the ghost of a pool of water," (LOL) it wouldn't occur to me that I'm seeing ghosts. I would occur to me that I'm in very deep trouble, since the water I am so longing for is not as close to me as I thought, and I'm going to die if I don't get some right quick.

That, and I hate the desert, so my being out there in the first place is pretty remote.

Glad to see you find this amusing.
But please answer the rest of my question, what do YOU think a believer would choose, and why? As well, what a skeptic would choose, and why? Do you think even though it may be a common occurence for mirages to appear, that a believer would think the pool of water was a mirage? The questions may seem silly to you, but they may give some insight into how different people react to a situation, based on what their belief system is.

Then again, you could go back to rolling on the floor if you like.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Jesus, I missed a lot. OK, turtle, you tell me I am incorrect that you cannot show the efficacy of your standards for evidence. Show me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Take your petty personal wars elsewhere.

Looks like you've taken yours elsewhere. I still can't believe you said what you did re: Girl6's intentions for SC. Shame on you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the questions:

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the question:

Where is evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese?

Evasion noted.

 

[jmercer]

I see your point. However, if you just would break even, there's not much point in gambling anyway. If you keep on walking out with a profit, surely there must be at least a few who couldn't just stop when they had won a few hundred bucks. And those people would be noticed.

You walk out from a casino with $50,000, you are bound to get noticed. Think the casinos don't exchange information on big winners? You bet they do.

Hehe... saying that there's not much of a point in gambling just because you would break even is kind of funny, if you think about it... because the vast majority of gamblers lose, and they still keep gambling anyway.

But yes, you're absolutely right about big winners. But unless they hit a slot or something with major odds, they're not going to win big unless they bet big. And if they bet big, they're going to lose big AND win big... and yeah, the house will track them over time to see if it's a net loss or win for the house. (Part of the reason casinos comp big winners is to get the money back, and yeah - they track what happens after the person arrives. A net break-even might be interesting to them, but it wouldn't set off any alarm bells. (I don't think it would, anyway.)

After all, casinos are looking for cheaters, card counters, etc. If someone's apparently not cheating and is just breaking even over a few months, they might be curious... but not concerned as in "Get out of my casino, dude!".

 

[CFLarsen]

You are merely repeating yourself, but you are not answering the question:

Where is evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese?

Evasion noted.

No evasion at all. It's just that you seem to know exactly what claims are "serious" or not, solely based on your own prejudices.

That's a rather bigoted approach. If a paranormal claim isn't to your liking, then you dismiss it summarily.

Is it because it doesn't sound scientific enough? Are you too much of a snob to even deal with something like this?

 

[turtle]

Glad to see you find this amusing.
But please answer the rest of my question, what do YOU think a believer would choose, and why? As well, what a skeptic would choose, and why? Do you think even though it may be a common occurence for mirages to appear, that a believer would think the pool of water was a mirage? The questions may seem silly to you, but they may give some insight into how different people react to a situation, based on what their belief system is.

Then again, you could go back to rolling on the floor if you like.

I thought I did answer the question. I don't speak for believers, or skeptics. Just me. Although, of course I can give opinions on both. I assume, giving both groups the benefit of a doubt, that both groups would have the same response I would re: the mirage example. The only thing different would be their personal opinion about deserts. Some peple like 'em, I don't.

"Based on their belief system" well, I know (oops! Here comes a personal story again! Better duck.) a few people who've seen "ghosts" who didn't believe in them. One person actually tried to punch one out, which is one of the funnier things I've heard. I also know others who "believe" in ghosts, yet have never seen one. So there goes that theory.

And yes, I'm still ROF -- the whole somber serious pompous green cheese thread is quite funny.

 

[turtle]

How do you suggest we test for ghosts?

How do you?

Seems that the way things are going so far works. . .

 

[turtle]

So, we see the truth coming out. The information you seek is readily available at the bottom of every post I make.

Perhaps you should figure out what an anecdote is, and what kind of provacateur you're parroting in jzs.

Remember, whenever you want to try to move ahead, you know where to find help.

Until you work on the repeatability, falsifiablity, and so on, you're going to get nowhere.

You might start by reading some basic psychological literature on memory, perception, and learning. That might help settle on the language at least.

Perhaps you should stop being so patronizing and understand that I was being sarcastic re: your creditionals, although, if people here can seriously argue about green cheese and the moon, it should be taken seriously that I question what others here say about themselves.

I know what an anecdote is, why do you think I do not?

I have no idea what you mean about "parroting in jzs" or your little comment on being a "provacateur."

And I've gotten plenty of places, thank you. As well as read quite a bit on "basic psychological literature."

You want to test for ghosts, go ahead. Let us know what you found out.

 

[CFLarsen]

How do you?

Seems that the way things are going so far works. . .

Not with me. Answer the question. Please.