I have changed fundamental beliefs when evidence no longer warranted them. I have also changed what I consider to be knowledge on the same basis. This relates to what I took to be the meaning of this thread, when do you end debate?, or at what point does one deem the evidence sufficient for a conclusion?
In Statistics there are clear guidelines for when to accept a hypothesis, or to reject it favor of a less falsifiable null. But, as my namesake said, there are lies, then there are damned lies, then there are statistics.
That much is accepted by the scientific method. In law, you have the found guilty verdict, and the null hypothesis, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? I have been refused a place on juries because, in my opinion, it is better to let nine guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent, and the courts consider that "unreasonable doubt."
Then there are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.
For example, before I came to believe I had drunk some Jew's blood and nibbled his flesh, i had to first come to concede internal logical consistency to Christianity, if one granted certain premises, then I had to come to see the plausibility of the premises, then I had to apply this picture to the universe I perceived and fail to spot awkward facts, and finally, I had to hear the voice I will call der Teufal im Himmel (since YHWH is offensive to some) which told me I could do as he said or go to hell. In other words, it took not only an extraordinary accumulation of evidence but extraordinary personal experience to convert me, and even then it wasn't completely accomplished without appeals to the heart, ie, threats of hell versus a chance at poontang. ("But I am taking my meds now....")
In turn, giving it up involved 1. failure of the world to end on schedule, 2 my wife leaving me, 3 Der Teufal in Himmel telling me he was through with me and I could do as I pleased, 4 taking meds (then got me below the 50% plausibility mark) an 5 watching the truly disgusting behaviors of self-described 21st century Christians "judge a tree by its fruit."
Faith, I think, is believing something you know isn't proven, or, if one is better trained in logic, can't be falsified. Knowledge, however is only probabilistic.
What is truth? Two things, at least, are called by that word, Physical facts of the phenomenal world, "realfact" as they called it on Babylon 5, and rationalizations, mindfacts, epiphenomena, heartfelt truths, or, as Marx called them, ideological super-structure. Note that these "truths" are all based on postulates, assumptions unprovable within the system they establish, but necessary for the system to work. Note also, as Godel said, all systems inherently contain contradictions. Logically, then, logic can be construed as being valid only on its own terms.
So, when do we end debate? I am a solipsist by inclination of my right-brain/heart, but I keep bruising my shins. IThat's a fact I will still debate. I'm stubborn. As for mindfacts, I am satisfied if I can understand another's terms, or am understood. Groking is gravy, and conversion is something I seldom accomplish. I am more likely to be converted, as I have a strong tendency to "believe" anything I read while I am reading it, in order to grok.
Statistics: Posted by Twain Shakespeare — 30 Jul 2010, 00:05
]]>
There is of course, known chemical and biological reasons why one person will be an ardent believer in the "fantasiful" and another his exact opposite. I don't believe a pill has been made yet to 'cure' said "problem" but it is a matter of curious (not to mention "wise") debate given how such knowledge could quickly get abused, robbing us all of our free will.
Debate allows us to learn and when debates happens amongst people with genuinely open minds and the desire to learn, good things come as the result. I've frequently taken on the mantle of the Devil's Advocate, arguing for an idea or concept I actually don't buy into, just so I can learn from those that do believe it. It's a wonderful exercise that benefits everyone when done properly and with respect. But that's the rub... some (as has been expressed) simply want to be "right" and thus, learning swiftly leaves the body of a debate which transmutes into an argument; NO ONE WINS IN AN ARGUMENT!
Discussions can be perpetual, consuming years IF the debaters from either position are looking at things as a "friendly' conflict, either taking their time to do actual research... footwork tied to their views and the topic. It's a healthy hobby, so to speak. It can be fun, energizing and even priceless but, when ego creeps in (as it frequently will) the many positive factors seem to run away.
Hope I've made some sense here
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 17 Jul 2010, 22:41
]]>
Without debate and any variation thereof, to me would be like, "I believe in remote viewing." "Me, too." "Ditto that." "I concur." You just get a bunch of mutual 'Yes Men' stroking each other. Example, Randi's site is one where the people spend most of their time JREFing each other off. They curse and attack woo, but the irony is, if they didn't have people like me and several others who will disagree with the party line and play the Devil's Advocate, that site would be ever so boring.
Debate is good, let's rock!
Statistics: Posted by jakesteele — 17 Jul 2010, 15:07
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
watching this longer version of this trick
you started with the name calling craig browning
you know? if i change my signature to this, with the amount of posts that i post here
it would be the first thing it will come on google if somebody googles your name
thats a funny thought isnt?
Statistics: Posted by ciscop — 28 May 2010, 22:13
]]>
When folks post things like this is become viral, and damaging. Yes the performer exposed some of it. But by continual posting of this, ciscop is pretty much "exposing by proxy"
As a magician, mentalist, whatever term you choose, it is our responsibility to safeguard the secrets of the arts, and hold them in respect. This means that if some assclown on TV exposes something, that you do not foster promotion of it.
Granted there is no real legal recourse in posting a link of this nature, but it comes down to ethics and doing the right thing. People spend a great deal of time and money developing effects, and this type of "proxied exposure" serves nothing positive. It only serves to continue the exposure, and feed the knock off makers with ideas of how things are done.
Reading over all of the posts, I will step out and say that I think much of this "proxied exposure" is a result of people needing to feed their own egos... a "look at me!!" cry for attention. When you break it down to the basic psychological level, its really no different than a tattle tale running to mommy in a need for attention and some type of false feedback to help them feel important.
Forums are a funny thing - they seem to be the "Popeye's Spinach" for the egomaniacs.
Those of you out there reading this thread, understand that the right thing to do in matters of exposure is to simply not pass it along. It will only serve to damage the community. It does nothing positive. Conduct yourself with class and be respectful of others intellectual creations. You will only come out the winner by doing so.
Statistics: Posted by mmreed — 28 May 2010, 22:09
]]>
ProfWag hit on something I've always pondered... if we know rationally/analytically/scientifically that some people are born with a natural penchant to ask questions and not accept things at face value and that others are born with a propensity leaning towards the fantastic, WHY IN THE HELL do we keep on riding the bloody merrie-go-round?
I'm a bit cursed in that I go both ways
... well, when it comes to the whole paranormal thing at least... 
Whenever I see or hear of something fantastic or even experience something strange, I have to investigate it. I can't help myself, I want to see if I can find a down to earth cause for the effect. I emphasize this because the skeptic's world can get carried away with all kinds of anything but down to earth theories as to what causes this or that to happen as well as its "rationalizing" modes (better known as excuse building from where I came from). I've had it proven to me more than a few times, the fact that either side is just as right as they are wrong. I can't help but feel that any HONEST human being that does the footwork and isn't letting the current Gospel (whatever that may be and from whichever source it exudes from) to be their only foundation upon which to stand. It's a matter of KNOWING not blind faith, that allows me to move through life with my head held up. I have the funny feeling that this is why most of the famed Martyrs in history endured the things they were put through; they simply knew something as truth and refused to deny it. Faith can be changed but knowledge of something perceived as proven (personal) fact cannot.
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 28 May 2010, 20:46
]]>
]]>
enjoy!
Statistics: Posted by ciscop — 28 May 2010, 01:29
]]>
]]>
Originally they seemed to speak only Yiddish but they soon realized that I was there to learn so the English became more prevalent and from time to time they'd even ask me a question, drawing me into the fray... it was one of the most enlightening summers of my life and one that I can superimposed onto this forum in that we are something like that gathering of minds.
For most of the time I've been here I've found it pleasurable though I do get a bit bent when I have had to repeat things dozens of times and no one (the scoffers) want to see and accept the common ground facts. It's as if they are so vested into the habit of questioning things that simplicity is thrown out the window with the bath water...
By all means, looking at the strange and surreal demands that we ask questions and too, obliges us to DISCUSS things from both, the analytical as well as the metaphysical side of possibility/plausibility. This is the only time one actually finds themselves standing on those mid-points of an issue the old sages referred to as "Wisdom" or "Harmonium" -- when we BALANCE issues in a way that allows a sense of resolve even when said resolve may be temporary. As we mature and learn more the time will come when more discussion and consideration is warranted and opinions/accepted points of view, can shift and do so in ways that are empowering rather than stifling.
Stagnation is not healthy and yet, when we dig our heels into the earth with a mind that's made-up this is exactly what we are doing; stagnating and refusing to actually grow beyond a given level.
How is this healthy or even Helpful?
It is a position that creates more hurt than healing; rifts between friends as well as family -- tears within our own soul and emotional base. We become bitter and determined to force our view point simply because we don't want to be alone in our heads, carrying this "cross" as it were, that we've made for ourselves; our ego convincing us that we can't change our position without looking like a fool so we just justify in our head, that we are right and all those that buy into the mid-stream course, are fools.
Yes, I'm speaking in extremes but time and space is short... and too, many here do not like to read anything more than a paragraph or two... to hell with any sort of presentation and clarification. Especially when such positions seem to meld the surreal with the real -- the logical with the illogical -- the tangible with the non-tangible. Yet, this is how the world really is, so why aren't we looking at things thus?
Ok... I'm being partly defensive here but at the same time I'm trying to encourage the idea of fairness. The more cynical side of view has a place but MUST likewise accept the fact that the opposing pov can agree with you so long as those hosting either point of view choose to move towards center; it's all the same, different only by degree. So if I move closer to your way of seeing things and you move towards my perspective, we can actually COMMUNICATE and find "compromise" -- a collective point of view that sustains the position shared by either "side".
The issue, to me at least, is one of possibility, probability, and plausibility vs. definite immovable "this is the only way" ideologies.
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 27 May 2010, 23:00
]]>
]]>
]]>