Misconceptions about Me, Baye's, Rigor, Exodus, Evolution

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the history of science rife with the insistence by the scientists of the day that some things simply COULD NOT BE. Except they were. I'm not even talking centuries ago, go look up the "proof" that continents cannot drift from the 50s/60s. Longer ago it was mathmatically proven if the human body moved faster then thirty miles an hour it would implode. You think it's quaint? You think we aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just accidentally made a compelling case AGAINST miracles. Oops.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the history of science rife with the insistence by the scientists of the day that some things simply COULD NOT BE. Except they were. I'm not even talking centuries ago, go look up the "proof" that continents cannot drift from the 50s/60s. Longer ago it was mathmatically proven if the human body moved faster then thirty miles an hour it would implode. You think it's quaint? You think we aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just accidentally made a compelling case AGAINST miracles. Oops.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I have said before, perhaps not clearly enough, that they aren't "miracles" in that these things DO happen, we simply don't understand how they happen. Yet.

As soon as we can explain something we take it out of the "supernatural" column and assign it to the "science" column. When Newton proposed a univeral law of gravity, he was accused by scientists of "bowing to mysticism."

The point I am making is the so-called miracles are real, I know for myself this is fact. I know consciousness continues and exists apart from matter, though at times, in conjunction with matter. I know that people in and out of time effect one another, some people accept this as a normal part of everyday life.

I don't "believe" these things the way you believe a spaceship was sent to Jupiter. I know these things through my own experience. I am not trying to convince, just challenge those who always purport to be so objective to face their own bigotry.

And before you get yourself all offended, go look up the definition of the word.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the history of science rife with the insistence by the scientists of the day that some things simply COULD NOT BE. Except they were. I'm not even talking centuries ago, go look up the "proof" that continents cannot drift from the 50s/60s. Longer ago it was mathmatically proven if the human body moved faster then thirty miles an hour it would implode. You think it's quaint? You think we aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just accidentally made a compelling case AGAINST miracles. Oops.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I have said before, perhaps not clearly enough, that they aren't "miracles" in that these things DO happen, we simply don't understand how they happen. Yet.

As soon as we can explain something we take it out of the "supernatural" column and assign it to the "science" column. When Newton proposed a univeral law of gravity, he was accused by scientists of "bowing to mysticism."

The point I am making is the so-called miracles are real, I know for myself this is fact. I know consciousness continues and exists apart from matter, though at times, in conjunction with matter. I know that people in and out of time effect one another, some people accept this as a normal part of everyday life.

I don't "believe" these things the way you believe a spaceship was sent to Jupiter. I know these things through my own experience. I am not trying to convince, just challenge those who always purport to be so objective to face their own bigotry.

And before you get yourself all offended, go look up the definition of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying weird things happen but are just a part of nature we don't understand yet, then I fully agree. If you're saying these things are attributable to "God", then your point above seems to run counter to this line of thought.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the expression is an ROP problem works like this. Suppose I claim that I can see coins as they are flipped and caught and thus can call them with near perfect accuracy. Would you believe me if I did it five times in a row? You shouldn't if you thought that it was a million to one against me having that ability (even after I claimed it). You would need well over twenty accurate consecutive calls. But even that shouldn't suffice. Unless the only two explanations were that I got lucky or I had the ability. I could also be cheating. And even if that was a 1000-1 shot originally, it would still be, due to ROP, much more likely. So I would have to go to extraordinary lenghths to prove I wasn't cheating.

If my claim instead was that I had some gizmo in my shoe that saw the coin, it would be a less extraordinary claim and perhaps ten flips should convince you. See how that works?

BUT WAIT. Guess what. There really is at least one person who had this physical ability. They called him the Flipper. Now deceased. This changes everything. It shows that there is one example AND it shows that it is not an impossibility.
Because I know about this guy I actually would only need to see about six or seven accurate flips from someone else who claimed this ability before I'd bet on him. Just like I'd totally change my thinking about religion if I ever heard of ANY sort of CLEARLY supernatural event.


[/ QUOTE ]



But why should I believe this "evidence" of yours about "Flipper"? The claimed ability of him is clearly extraordinary, and while doubtless you can pony up some others who also claim to have witnessed it, why should I believe all of you? When the stronger possibilities versus any such extraordinary claim are 1) you are lying; 2) you are deluded (were drunk, phychologically impaired, he was cheating but you didn't catch it, etc.).

And this is now. What of a hundred or thousand years from now assuming this thread is archived for posterity and there are no further examples of the ability you claim for Flipper? Who will believe your claim then and why should they?

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Well I guess if they have faith/trust in the prophet of Bayseianism, David Sklansky, they might believe it after all huh?

[calcbandit]

[ QUOTE ]

But why should I believe this "evidence" of yours about "Flipper"? The claimed ability of him is clearly extraordinary, and while doubtless you can pony up some others who also claim to have witnessed it, why should I believe all of you? When the stronger possibilities versus any such extraordinary claim are 1) you are lying; 2) you are deluded (were drunk, phychologically impaired, he was cheating but you didn't catch it, etc.).

And this is now. What of a hundred or thousand years from now assuming this thread is archived for posterity and there are no further examples of the ability you claim for Flipper? Who will believe your claim then and why should they?

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Well I guess if they have faith/trust in the prophet of Bayseianism, David Sklansky, they might believe it after all huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good post and you're right. If, in 10,000 years, I read this post and the only evidence for the flipper was DS' say-so, I wouldn't beleive it. And I shouldn't. In this case, I would be mistaken (although I still would've made a good decision).

However, I'd much rather take this worldview of being skeptical of claims without evidence as opposed to going on beleiving everything I read, including things like stories about fairies and unicorns and hippogriffs and guys that come back from the dead.

And I'd still rather take either of these 2 stances of either beleiving nothing without proof and good reason or beleiving everything I read than just selectively beleiving in tall tales from 1 specific book, from which everything I read I hugely lower my standards of evidence and cease most critical thinking.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But why should I believe this "evidence" of yours about "Flipper"? The claimed ability of him is clearly extraordinary, and while doubtless you can pony up some others who also claim to have witnessed it, why should I believe all of you? When the stronger possibilities versus any such extraordinary claim are 1) you are lying; 2) you are deluded (were drunk, phychologically impaired, he was cheating but you didn't catch it, etc.).

And this is now. What of a hundred or thousand years from now assuming this thread is archived for posterity and there are no further examples of the ability you claim for Flipper? Who will believe your claim then and why should they?

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Well I guess if they have faith/trust in the prophet of Bayseianism, David Sklansky, they might believe it after all huh?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a good post and you're right. If, in 10,000 years, I read this post and the only evidence for the flipper was DS' say-so, I wouldn't beleive it. And I shouldn't. In this case, I would be mistaken (although I still would've made a good decision).

[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely you should be skeptical, and especially skeptical of anyone trying to sell some old rope to you on the basis its true.

chez

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I was making a point about the state of "believing,"

[/ QUOTE ]
Your point is a tautological one. I am aware that all of reality and our perception therein *could* be subject to mysterious forces... both natural and supernatural.


[ QUOTE ]
How do you know? Have you tried it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have.


[ QUOTE ]
Sheets of mica or obsidian would probably do as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they wouldn't.


[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying your fund of facts is a belief system in which you choose to believe what someone has said.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. I don't have any belief about these things. I have been presented with enough evidence to be reasonably sure of the conclusion. All of this is framed inside of what I said above about reality being potentially subjective. I don't assign 0% or 100% to anything.


[ QUOTE ]
We were brainwashed to do this as children. We were told that there were "right" answers and "wrong" answers and we were humilated and shunted aside and made to feel like outcasts if we did not know enough of the RIGHT ANSWERS. We either believed what we were told or we suffered the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure where you grew up but none of this happened to me. I was taught to use my brain to try and figure things out as best I could.


[ QUOTE ]
Real miracles abound.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are confusing my skeptical stance with a denying one. As I alluded to, I think miracles *are* possible. But I have severe doubts about most of the things that you would point to as being examples of miracles here on Earth. Why? A combination of lack of evidence and likelihood of alternate explanations. Humans are bad at judging these kinds of things. Have you ever studied a book regarding how our brains work? I will read your book if you go and read How We Know What Isn't So. And if you have a compelling article, I will read it with an open mind.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying weird things happen but are just a part of nature we don't understand yet, then I fully agree. If you're saying these things are attributable to "God", then your point above seems to run counter to this line of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, it depends on how you or I define "God." But I think we can just agree and leave God out of it. In this case, I think of God as the collective consciousness, kind of a parallel to Jung's collective unconscious.

Regardless, I think it's quite possible, as quickly as we are advancing in science and spirituality for want of a better word, that in a few hundred years, what we now call "faith healing" wil be fairly common practice and not considered part of religious practice but peripheral to more standard medicine - like chiropractors are now.



(In the sixties, chiropractic was practically considered voodoo by the medical establishment - some readers may not be old enough to be aware of this.)

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure where you grew up but none of this happened to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? were you home-schooled? No one gave you a test in first grade, a sheet of addition problems and marked the "incorrect" anwers in red and circled a number at the top or a letter that was A,B,C,D or F? By the time you got to middle school you didn't have the dumb kids classes and the college prep ones?

BTW, I have read that book and I will, if you tell me when you have the one I recommended, go get it from the library and we can start a thread and discuss them both. This is a serious offer. And I do know something of how the brain works. It's part of being a physical anthropologist with a specialty in paleoanthropology - tho' I am not a medical expert. And I've been out of my field for a while. Still, I'm not completely ignorant.

PM me when you have book in hand and we'll begin, if you like.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
in a few hundred years, what we now call "faith healing" wil be fairly common practice and not considered part of religious practice but peripheral to more standard medicine - like chiropractors are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...um...what is it that we(you?) now call "faith healing?" Intercessory prayer? Laying on of hands? Anointing with holy water?

What exactly are you talking about?