Mageth

VoF:

You exhibited a nice bit of skepticism in your last post. Keep it up; we'll make a skeptic of you yet.

MrDarwin

I wasn't asking whether you believed those various things, but rather how you would judge whether to believe such things.

This, I think, cuts to the heart of the matter. Have you taken apart every TV set? Have you been to every broadcasting station? Have you met every actor? No, of course not. But these personal experiences on your part combine to allow you to extrapolate to the set of all television sets that there are not tiny actors inside any of them.

And I think this is the kind of thing we are doing with various claims, such as "psychic pets". Many of us have pets, and see no evidence that they are psychic. Many of us have examined claims of psychic abilities, and found them to be false. Many of us have researched the subject, and feel we have enough knowledge about the subject to extrapolate to all psychics, but most especially those psychics who (1) seek attention for their abilities, (2) seek money for their abilities, or (3) are doing it for entertainment (and let's face it, tv shows are primarily about entertainment, hand-in-hand with making money.)

MrDarwin

And a sense of humor too--there's hope yet!

Mageth

Theoretically, in a truly infinite universe, anything is possible if you wait long enough or go far enough (on a scale asymptotically approaching infinity).

Not true. We can rule out quite a bit of things as not being logically possible (e.g. square circles). If we accept certain laws (e.g. laws of physics) as universally applicable, we can rule out some things as not being possible under the univeral laws (e.g. perpetual motion machines).

Veil of Fire

Good point; I've always been a fan of the White Crow argument.

No, I haven't. So if someone claimed that THEIR tv set contained little tiny people instead of a picture tube, I'd naturally want to take it apart and see for myself. It'd be fascinating.

If for some reason that's not an option, I really don't have anything to REFUTE it with other than prior experience. Prior experience IS evidence, but only if I actually present it.

I would not say (like Shea and Corwin did):
"That's just stupid!".

I would say:
"I've taken apart lots of TV sets, and have never found tiny actors. Therefore, I'm inclined to disbelieve you."
If he asked, I'd send him to some websites about how TVs generally work. Websites that *I* looked up to support my claim (as in, I wouldn't say "Go look it up yourself!").

I've participated, and failed to participate, in enough chain letters that I believe I can make a judgement based on personal experience. Particularly if the 'bad event' wasn't expounded upon (generally, I'd assume that someone honestly trying to help me would include as much specific information as possible, particularly as to the nature of the 'bad event', the time span involved, and how sending these letters would help, if any of those are known).

If the answers are not particularly forthcoming, I'd have to weigh other factors. Such as, is spending time and effort to follow these instructions more or less of a hassle than having to weather a nameless 'bad event'? If not, I'll take my chances with the alleged 'bad event'.

I suppose I get much more skeptical when a situation arises in which I must make a concrete decision. To send the chain letters or not. To pay money or not. At which point I have to weigh other factors into the equation (do I have the time to write the chain letters? Do I want to? Do I havw $1000 to send to Mageth? Do I want to?) in order to come to a conclusion.

Note that I'm not saying "I don't believe you", merely that "I can't use the avaliable evidence to reach a conclusion, and therefore have decided to risk a great evil befalling me based on money/time/effort/the fact that I *like* great evil".

[edit: Damnit, hit 'submit' too soon.]
I see that.

And that particular paragraph is all I was fishing for in the other threads. That paragraph contains a why-response. I'm sure if I asked for it, you'd provide links (or even things like books names or newspaper articles) to some of the sources you took evidence from and used to develop a conclusion.

That is ALL I was asking for; all I *ever* ask for in these cases.

I personally don't know anything about pet psychics. My cat seems to be able to tell time, but that's not evidence. Similarly, appeals to ridicule are not evidence. And treating me like a nutcase when I try to get a why-response to the appeals to ridicule is still not evidence. It just proves that the people who made the original statement don't actually care about convincing anyone or debating an issue or listening to me at all in any way shape or form.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Pitshade

This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=57&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">Science & Skepticism</a>

MrDarwin

VoF, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

(Pitshade's comment may seem like a non sequiteur, but this discussion started over in RRP and I asked him to move it here.)

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Could the philosophical "absurd" test, bear any weight on possible justifications, if only to rule in as POSSIBLE or rule out as ABSURD.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Perchance

Veil of Fire:

In a way, I wish I had your openness of mind. I like to think that I investigate claims and the evidence for and against either side, then decide based on that- but on the other hand, there are many claims that I don't investigate simply because I've found no evidence for them in the past. (For example, if someone claims that there is an invisible unicorn in her living room, I'm probably not going to believe her, just because I've never found evidence of unicorns, and I had imaginary friends myself as a child that I now know aren't real).

I, too, like it when people provide "why" reasons. However, if there are competing "why" reasons, I'm probably more likely to believe the one that relies on something closer to naturalistic evidence (the reason that I think natural processes instead of invisible demons cause rain).

A few questions:

1) Do you think that, if someone asserts something that sounds fantastic (like invisible unicorns), he or she has the burden of providing proof?

2) Are you more likely to disbelieve a claim such as an individual directly experiencing gods or psychic powers if he or she asks for money or insists that one must not ask for evidence, but "just believe"?

-Perchance.

phlebas

Ah HA!

This is *exactly* why we view claims of paranormal abilities with skepticism. We HAVE looked more than "a few" times and found no scorpion under the chair.

Imagine someone tells you every morning for 2 years that there is a scorpion under your chair. Eventually you will stop looking, right? After 700 non-scorpions in a row, it becomes more likely that you are falling for a childish game.

Now, after two years, this person instead says "there is a tarantula under your chair," do you assume all over that he's telling the truth because this is a different story?

By this time, surely this individual's credibility is shot, and you won't believe him any more until he reaches under your chair and pulls a scorpion out.

Judging psychic claims is similar to that. In fact, it's even worse, because at least we know scorpions exist and are capable of being under chairs.

Thousands of people have been tested for psychic abilities. None have passed. We are more than justified to scoff at future claims, until one of them produces the scorpion, metaphorically speaking.

And now there's someone who claims to psychically talk to animals. This stops being a simple scorpion under the chair and starts being a glowing orange scorpion wearing a mauve mumu and watching a Bollywood movie on a tiny TV set under your chair.

Can you understand why we wouldn't go "really?" and take a peek?