Weird Experience

[Fudbucker]

Exactly. And this was my basis for objecting to the word "conclude." I would accept "suspect" as a better choice. My suspicions increase, I cannot conclude, based on this happenstance alone.

But you can conclude a few things, when extremely long odds come up. Many cosmologists (Max Tegmark, a member here) have concluded a multiverse of universes exist, precisely to explain the fantastic coincidences we keep discovering wrt to the fine-tuning problem in cosmology.

To go back to dice (groan!), if we rolled a bunch of ten sided dice, and we got 31415926535897932384626433832795028 (Pi), there are a couple things we would conclude (not just suspect):
1. The dice aren't fair
2. Someone with a knowledge of mathematics have rigged the dice.

I mean, if that happened, wouldn't you believe (1) and (2)? Not just suspect but believe it to be the case?

So I disagree that we can't make conclusions based on probabilities. Drug trials are concluded based on probabilities, court cases are often determined based on DNA evidence (which is just probability) and it happens in science, in the case of the fine-tuning problem.

Here's what I think you're trying to say: if someone got 10 out of 10 on a Zener card test, you would suspect something is going on...and if they got another 10 out of 10, you would still suspect something is going on...the problem is, you reach a point (or you should) where suspicion turns into certainty (or near-certainty).

This is where we part ways. To make progress on which hypothesis to accept, it isn't enough to identify which explanation is more probable. Probability alone doesn't have explanatory power. If, on the other hand, we take the die apart and find out how it's been altered, that is a good explanation. Probability can influence our suspicions and lead us to look for one explanation over another, but that's it.

I would agree with this: probability can knock out competing hypotheses, but it often can't tell us the whole story (although in the case of the multiverse, probability alone is behind asserting a huge number of other universes exist).

So to go back to the person who gets 100 out of 100 on the Zener test, we can conclusively say it wasn't chance, but you would say, well, maybe they're cheating in a way we don't know about. More testing has to be done with this person. I would agree.

But here's my point: if we succeed in totally isolating the person so that cheating isn't a live hypothesis, and they still get all the cards right, we are now able to conclude a few things, wouldn't you agree? That it's not chance, it's not cheating, so what's left? That some unknown power/causal mechanism is at work.

The lack of confidence (unwillingness to bet) is akin to an opinion. And you are right - I am a cautious bettor and would avoid it. However, when we wish to make assertions about the world, this should go beyond suspicion and opinion - we need to check and demonstrate to provide a positive explanation, not one built on whether something was improbable or not.

True, positive explanations (those that lay a foundation for cause and effect- tiny germs cause disease) are always preferred, but they're not always available. We know, for example, that something is increasing the expansion of the universe. Yet we have no positive explanation of what it is or how it works. Yet we know something is out there, otherwise how do we explain our results?

So the absence of a positive explanation doesn't mean there's no explanation that can be given. Quite the contrary. We may never know why the murderer killed Jane Doe, but his blood is at the scene, and he gets put away for life.

I generally see this type of argument used in a similar fashion - to show some intelligent interference behind an improbable phenomenon. We are saying the dice are "fixed" - meaning there is purpose and intent. So too does the creationist, stunned by the improbable outcome of a world with them in it, say the situation is "fixed" and designed. But it's the explanation behind the different ideas that holds sway - not merely the unlikelihood I should be here to comment.

Except when there is no explanation, as in the case of Dark Energy. What is Dark Energy? We have no explanation. Does it exist? Certainly. Either it exists, or all our measurements are totally off (which is possible).

Again, I disagree. The chance explanation is always in play until some other explanation is settled upon.

This is wrong. Go back to Zener Cards: John Doe gets 1,000 out of 1,000 right. The chance explanation cannot rationally be considered to be a viable explanation at this point, even though we're not entirely sure John isn't cheating in some way. There are ways to explain an event like what John did, but chance is not one of them.

Or take Dark Energy. The chance explanation for Dark Energy is that every observation we've made has been screwed up in some way. There is no Dark Energy, we just can't get the observations right. That's the chance hypothesis, and it could be true, but no one takes it seriously, even though there is no explanation for why our observations are what they are. It's just this mysterious thing called dark energy.

Consider a deeper question. Suppose I grant that Obama's prediction couldn't have been a chance event and was based on some secret ability of the President. I can then ask, even without knowing what that ability is, what the chances are that he should have the ability itself? And, receiving an answer to that, I can ask what the further chances are for the next level.

In other words, what are the chances of people having precognitive dreams? Sure, you would have to look at that to figure out what happened. If you believe it's simply not possible, then you would believe Obama just happened to get it right by chance.

If that's where you are, that's where you are, but I don't think that's being very skeptical. What if Obama had dreamed about 20 earthquakes and got them all right? There comes a time when our most fundamental beliefs have to be gotten rid of, in the face of overwhelming evidence.

So long as we accept our universe is fundamentally built from random quantum events, no matter how improbable anything may be, we already know, deep down, chance rules the game. I see no escape from this.

And yet, if Obama correctly predicted a whole day's worth of earthquakes from a dream, I think you would see an escape from that. There's always a competing theory, no matter how sure one is. Maybe it has a .0000001% chance of being true, but all it takes is one white raven to invalidate "All Ravens are Black".

 

[marplots]

I think we've both expressed our positions well, so forgive me if I've clipped too much from the conversation to avoid repetition. I focused on what I think is a new aspect you've raised...

So I disagree that we can't make conclusions based on probabilities. Drug trials are concluded based on probabilities, court cases are often determined based on DNA evidence (which is just probability) and it happens in science, in the case of the fine-tuning problem.

and

So the absence of a positive explanation doesn't mean there's no explanation that can be given. Quite the contrary. We may never know why the murderer killed Jane Doe, but his blood is at the scene, and he gets put away for life.

In those two sections you have introduced the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in one form or another. And, probability can be useful when we are called upon to render a judgement. It would be so for as simple a system as drawing balls from a bag. Say a bag has four black balls and one white. You draw one out and conceal it in your hand. Should you ask me, "Which color ball is in my hand?" I would answer "Black."

As with the jury case and the medical trial case, I am called upon to make some judgement and would choose the most probable. However, notice I am not concluding anything based on the probability, I am merely restating the probability. I am not saying for sure that the ball is black or the medicine works or the person is guilty - I am forced to make a guess, and I make it.

Why does this matter? Because as soon as actual explanatory evidence comes into play - I glimpse the ball, or elucidate how the medicine works, or discover the man's alibi absolves him - as soon as real evidence comes into play, I abandon my reliance on probability and change my mind to fit the facts at hand.

No one says the odds of hitting the lottery are so astronomically bad that the winning ticket you are holding must be an illusion. In all cases, we throw out the probability once the actual result is known. It is the very lack of knowing more that puts the mystery in the uncheckable, historical coincidence ctegory.

As far as Tegmark goes, I think I'm in good company criticizing the basis for his claim - at least I'm not alone poo-pooing the heft of it. Many would like to know how we are to go about testing the hypothesis the probability suggests.

Except when there is no explanation, as in the case of Dark Energy. What is Dark Energy? We have no explanation. Does it exist? Certainly. Either it exists, or all our measurements are totally off (which is possible).

Indeed. But does the lack of a sufficient explanation mean that unsatisfactory methods are somehow made more trustworthy? Unless we are driven to make a decision (as with a jury), there is no reason to jump the gun this way.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I think the more important distinction regarding the dice example is that Fuddbucker is perfectly okay assigning a non-supernatural explanation to the results in either case. Wether it be coincidence or loaded die, in either case nobody has reached from beyond the grave in influence the results.

So back to the license plates - are we then in agreement that it just so happened you noticed a couple of New Mexico license plates in a parking lot at a time when you were most likely to take note of them?

 

[SezMe]

Fudbucker,

<snippy>

This was an excellent post. Well said, direct and empathetic. JREF at its best.

 

[Southwind17]

Mods ... PLEASE ... split this thread now and divert all of Fudbucker's posts to [Religion and] Philosophy.

Seriously, Fudbucker's arguments have, again, gravitated to 'ifs', 'buts' and hypotheticals.

Of course, IF a fair sided die rolled 6 a zillion times in succession we would conclude that something other than chance is going on (even though it is remotely possible).

Thing is though Fudbucker, neither you nor I nor anybody here has ever witnessed a fair die roll a 6 a zillion times.

So, fudbucker, either take your arguments to the philosophy section or get real.

 

[Spektator]

Maybe I'm just sensitized to notice now, but yesterday I spotted another far-from-home New Mexico plate in the parking lot of a local Chinese restaurant. That's three in less than a week now, but I don't have the feeling someone's trying to communicate with me.

 

[Fudbucker]

This was an excellent post. Well said, direct and empathetic. JREF at its best.

It was a very good post. Rereading it, though, I was struck that the website cited is simply a collection of anecdotes. Why are those anecdotes relevant and believable while these are not? http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lv4w4/serious_have_you_ever_had_an_unexplained_or/

 

[Fudbucker]

Mods ... PLEASE ... split this thread now and divert all of Fudbucker's posts to [Religion and] Philosophy.

Seriously, Fudbucker's arguments have, again, gravitated to 'ifs', 'buts' and hypotheticals.

You mean my arguments about hypothesis confirmation? Please be serious. I have said nothing you won't find in any book on conditional probability.

Of course, IF a fair sided die rolled 6 a zillion times in succession we would conclude that something other than chance is going on (even though it is remotely possible).

I don't know. I think, in the case of the paranormal, some people would conclude "cheating", no matter how outrageous the odds of a successful test are.

Thing is though Fudbucker, neither you nor I nor anybody here has ever witnessed a fair die roll a 6 a zillion times.

True, nor have I taken a position on what happened. I have repeatedly talked about being on the fence, and have agreed with people who suggest I'm not in the best frame of mind to think about these things.

So, fudbucker, either take your arguments to the philosophy section or get real.

So questions about what constitutes evidence aren't relevant to general skepticism? Seriously?

Look, if you don't like the thread I started, you don't have to post here. Since what happened to me involve long odds and prima facia coincidences, an analysis of what happened will have to involve discussion of how low-probability events change (or don't change) our beliefs.

 

[Fudbucker]

I think we've both expressed our positions well, so forgive me if I've clipped too much from the conversation to avoid repetition. I focused on what I think is a new aspect you've raised...

Sure, I think I know where you're coming from.

In those two sections you have introduced the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in one form or another. And, probability can be useful when we are called upon to render a judgement. It would be so for as simple a system as drawing balls from a bag. Say a bag has four black balls and one white. You draw one out and conceal it in your hand. Should you ask me, "Which color ball is in my hand?" I would answer "Black."

As with the jury case and the medical trial case, I am called upon to make some judgement and would choose the most probable. However, notice I am not concluding anything based on the probability, I am merely restating the probability.

I don't believe that's true, that every jury verdict is simply a restatement of probability or being forced to make a guess. Certainly, I think many juries believe the person is guilty, the company was wrong, the person is innocent, etc. Most of us have been on a jury before. The ones I were on, I actually believed the defendant was guilty.

Take O.J. Simpson's case, for example. I, personally, believe he's a murderer. I watched the trial. Yet I also believe it's possible he was the victim of a colossal frame-up. While that's possible, it's so improbable that it doesn't change my belief that he did it.

I am not saying for sure that the ball is black or the medicine works or the person is guilty - I am forced to make a guess, and I make it.

Yes, but you're forced to make those kinds of guesses in your day-to-day life all the time. A friend says he comes back from Paris. Was he really in France? Your spouse says they have to work late at the office. Are they really at the office? I think if you look at a person's belief system, you'll find they make educated guesses like that all the time.

Why does this matter? Because as soon as actual explanatory evidence comes into play - I glimpse the ball, or elucidate how the medicine works, or discover the man's alibi absolves him - as soon as real evidence comes into play, I abandon my reliance on probability and change my mind to fit the facts at hand.

Except I've already given an example where there's no explanatory evidence. Where's the evidence for dark energy or dark matter? Do you believe dark energy and dark matter don't exist? Many times in science, we don't have the casual explanation for X, yet we have to believe in X because not-X can't be the case. How did heredity work before DNA was discovered? Does lack of an explanation mean Mendel should have abandoned his conclusions?

No one says the odds of hitting the lottery are so astronomically bad that the winning ticket you are holding must be an illusion. In all cases, we throw out the probability once the actual result is known. It is the very lack of knowing more that puts the mystery in the uncheckable, historical coincidence ctegory.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

As far as Tegmark goes, I think I'm in good company criticizing the basis for his claim - at least I'm not alone poo-pooing the heft of it. Many would like to know how we are to go about testing the hypothesis the probability suggests.

Sure, many complain that positing a multiverse is creation ex nihilo, but then many also say something like a multiverse has to exist to explain the fantastic improbabilities of the fine-tuning problem. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

Indeed. But does the lack of a sufficient explanation mean that unsatisfactory methods are somehow made more trustworthy? Unless we are driven to make a decision (as with a jury), there is no reason to jump the gun this way.

Then there's no reason to believe in dark energy or dark matter.

 

[marplots]

Except I've already given an example where there's no explanatory evidence. Where's the evidence for dark energy or dark matter? Do you believe dark energy and dark matter don't exist? Many times in science, we don't have the casual explanation for X, yet we have to believe in X because not-X can't be the case. How did heredity work before DNA was discovered? Does lack of an explanation mean Mendel should have abandoned his conclusions?

This is good because it's emotionally neutral and illustrates a nuance.

When I say "dark matter exists" I am simply creating a placeholder. I'm saying something exists with the following properties (things like "has gravity" and "shapes galaxies" and other stuff I am not schooled enough to know), without being able to say more. If you ask me what dark matter is, I cannot say, other than to repeat the list of properties it has to satisfy to fill the placeholder. Same with Mendel - he observed a phenomenon and figure there had to be a "something" causing it.

In this thread we have tried to come up with mundane explanations - things the fit the placeholder as you have described it. You have laid out your experience and various hypotheses have been advanced. So long as those ideas fit the parameters of your placeholder, all will do and you need some way to separate out the true from the false.

My claim is that this requires further information, not an estimate of probability. I say this for two reasons. The first is that a low probability doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened in some particular instance (as we covered extensively) and the second is figuring out the probability requires more information all by itself. We can't simply claim something is improbable because it pleases us.

Let us see how further information would impact the analysis. If you find out an old school chum agreed to put some license plates on a few cars to trick you, I assume you would fill the placeholder with that and the whole incident would dissolve into a feeling of "well, that's explained then." So it seems obvious we could have a path to validate at least this mundane hypothesis.

Now, on what basis will we do the same for a supernatural phenomenon? I can't think of one. But I'm biased. Just like the scientists who, wondering about dark matter, haven't told me it's probably ghosts, or maybe it's finally evidence for god.

The reason, from my view, is that the function of an explanation is to illuminate what I do not yet understand in terms of what I do understand. With supernatural events, there's a huge gap between the two. To me, a supernatural explanation is no explanation at all - it's just another form of placeholder, waiting for more evidence or information.

I understand my position is not shared by everyone, but at least it has the advantage of having a way forward - experiments to suggest, variations to try, numbers to crunch. What progress can possibly be made if the matter is a one-off supernatural event?

 

[Fudbucker]

This is good because it's emotionally neutral and illustrates a nuance.

When I say "dark matter exists" I am simply creating a placeholder. I'm saying something exists with the following properties (things like "has gravity" and "shapes galaxies" and other stuff I am not schooled enough to know), without being able to say more. If you ask me what dark matter is, I cannot say, other than to repeat the list of properties it has to satisfy to fill the placeholder. Same with Mendel - he observed a phenomenon and figure there had to be a "something" causing it.

Right. The placeholder for what happened to me is either coincidence or non-coincidence. If it's coincidence, then we also have an explanation- take a bunch of people like myself and you'll get some strange coincidences based on the law of averages.

If it's non-coincidence, then it could be any of a number of strange things, so we sacrifice explanatory power with the non-coincidence hypothesis. That doesn't make it wrong- just not a very satisfactory explanation. Oddly enough, this is why some physicists reject the multiverse solution for fine-tuning- if these other universes are, in principle, non-observable, then we sort of reach a dead-end; you can't do experiments on something that's untestable, like other universes.

I've never really had anything supernatural happen to me (a few odd experiences), so I suppose I'm leaning on the coincidence-side, because I hate to be left guessing, but a part of me wonders.

Is invoking coincidence all the time a form of intellectual laziness? Is it too good an explanation? Like the scientific version of "God did it"? Why are stories of coincidence so readily accepted but stories of paranormal phenomena subjected to such scrutiny? It's often said here that the plural of anecdote isn't evidence, yet a form of "proof" was brought to my attention that was nothing but a collection of anecdotes of amazing coincidences. If scrutinizing accounts of the paranormal is par-for-the-course, shouldn't it work both ways? There's seems to be an assumption that coincidence is the "default" position, but I don't see why that should be the case. Why does coincidence have a higher prior probability than non-coincidence?

I'm wandering far astray from the OP, I know, but I think these are valid questions. Maybe I will start a new thread.

In this thread we have tried to come up with mundane explanations - things the fit the placeholder as you have described it. You have laid out your experience and various hypotheses have been advanced. So long as those ideas fit the parameters of your placeholder, all will do and you need some way to separate out the true from the false.

True.

My claim is that this requires further information, not an estimate of probability. I say this for two reasons. The first is that a low probability doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened in some particular instance (as we covered extensively) and the second is figuring out the probability requires more information all by itself. We can't simply claim something is improbable because it pleases us.

Let us see how further information would impact the analysis. If you find out an old school chum agreed to put some license plates on a few cars to trick you, I assume you would fill the placeholder with that and the whole incident would dissolve into a feeling of "well, that's explained then." So it seems obvious we could have a path to validate at least this mundane hypothesis.

Well, the only hypothesis worth considering is random chance. I doubt my wife had people changing licence plates, or told them to drive to the theater. However, if you take a thousand people in my situation, and their wives make predictions (sorry, "statements") about signs, you'll get a few like me, where what's talked about actually happened. That would be the coincidence explanation, and it's an extremely compelling one.

Now, on what basis will we do the same for a supernatural phenomenon? I can't think of one. But I'm biased. Just like the scientists who, wondering about dark matter, haven't told me it's probably ghosts, or maybe it's finally evidence for god.

I'm also biased. I believe dark energy/matter will ultimately be something that fits into the standard scientific "arena". I don't think it will be God, or the music of the spheres.

The reason, from my view, is that the function of an explanation is to illuminate what I do not yet understand in terms of what I do understand. With supernatural events, there's a huge gap between the two. To me, a supernatural explanation is no explanation at all - it's just another form of placeholder, waiting for more evidence or information.

Right, the supernatural has often turned out, under further observation, to be "the natural".

I understand my position is not shared by everyone, but at least it has the advantage of having a way forward - experiments to suggest, variations to try, numbers to crunch. What progress can possibly be made if the matter is a one-off supernatural event?

No progress. But being happy with an explanation, because it leads to further experimentation, has no bearing on whether the explanation is actually true. If fine-tuning is just us getting lucky in a sea of unobservable universes, how boring! Much better if we can derive the values of the physical constants from some, as yet, undiscovered principles. But it might be turtles all the way down. I think with inflation theory getting the boost that it did, you'll see a lot more acceptance of multiverse theory.

I think we've probably exhausted the topic, LOL. But I may start a new thread on "coincidental bias".

 

[marplots]

I think we've probably exhausted the topic, LOL. But I may start a new thread on "coincidental bias".

Looking forward to it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

It was a very good post. Rereading it, though, I was struck that the website cited is simply a collection of anecdotes. Why are those anecdotes relevant and believable while these are not? http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lv4w4/serious_have_you_ever_had_an_unexplained_or/

Yes, they are just anecdotes, but to be fair, so are yours at this point. My point was that http://www.theoddsmustbecrazy.com/ shows that coincidences happen ALL the time. They seem thrilling or exciting or important when they happen to you (or me), but it turns out they are not all that special because they happen all the time to everyone. Anyone could have put together that website, but some skeptics decided it would be fun and telling. I think it is.

Ward