Jayhawker Soule

But do you not generalize and extrapolate based on those conclusions you do form?

Also, (and please forgive me if you've previously addressed this) I'd be interested in learning of some of those conclusions. Is there anything you discount, or do you truly 'reserve judgement' on such things as gods, reincarnation, unicorns, the faerie kingdom, clairvoyance, astrology, yeti, alien abduction, etc.?

MrDarwin

I think it's worth reminding everybody that what we're talking about is a psychic on a tv show. This fact alone makes me rank it right down there at the bottom with Fox's "alien autopsy" on the credibility scale. This is because the whole point of such tv shows is to entertain, and to make money by providing entertainment.

Moreover, what they are showing the viewer is highly and selectively edited. Do they ever tell the viewer how many "readings" this psychic does in any given period of time, and how many of them are unsuccessful?

Oolon Colluphid

Suppose I claim that eating a pound of grass cuttings will cure your cold. No wait, it’s half a pound, followed by a Guinness. Or is it red fescue grass only, or perhaps only red fescue fried in butter. But only with a good grind of pepper. Or not. Or maybe the pepper on its own. Pepper and Guinness, that’s it.

I can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and am faster than a speeding bullet.

Snake oil will cure warts. Okay... but is it from puff adders, cobras, pythons or oil squeezed from a fea’s viper on the first (second? third? fourth...?) full moon of the year, and only when a cock crows in New Delhi? Or only plantar warts? Or is it only snakes fed on red fescue and Guinness?

I have build a perpetual motion machine. No, really, I have. But it’s invisible (gotta keep this sort of thing secret!). The magic lubricant is fea’s viper oil...

Am I now just being silly?

VoF, do you look for evidence for or against each and every one of the permutations of these claim?

Why might you rule them out?

If I, sitting in an office in Winchester, England, was told as you were that there’s a scorpion under my chair, I would not look. The reason is simple. It is far too improbable, given the background evidence. Not only is it hugely improbable that there’d be a scorpion, of any size, in Winchester (Marwell Zoo down the road notwithstanding), it is also hugely improbable that someone can remote-view it. The two probabilities multiplied together make a probability so small that it can be safely ignored. In other words, the improbability of it makes the claim silly.

There are simply too many claims that can be made, and we cannot possibly investigate them all. But we don’t need to. Many claims can be ruled out a priori. We may, if we’re feeling generous, just rule them out provisionally, but that much is a personal decision -- go ahead and investigate the snake oil if you want.

We all work from background, baseline evidence and experience. Based on that, some claims can be safely ruled out as too improbable, too lacking in evidence to be taken seriously, too unlikely to be anything except ridiculous. We don’t have to try to prove or disprove everything, only those things where the background information makes them at least plausible.

To put it another way, a claim needs to be coherent with the background knowledge. If it would mean throwing out too much of the tried-and-tested knowledge we have already gained, then it should be treated with great caution. If it is sufficiently implausible, it may even be worth laughing at. See examples above.

Ref psychic pets, they can be safely ruled out a priori. Researchers have completely failed to demonstrate the existence of psychic abilities in humans, despite many attempts. This makes it improbable (though not impossible) that other animals have them. But also, in both humans and animals, there are various, more parsimonious, explanations for the apparent abilities. These explanations mean that the ‘psychic hypothesis’ is just not worth bothering with. It’s too unlikely, too silly. Just stupid, in fact.

To use the simple motto: keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

TTFN, Oolon

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

phlebas

Exactly right on all points, MrD. Each factor you mention simply makes this increasingly unlikely scorpion more and more garish

Veil of Fire

Sammi: What's the philosophical 'absurd test'?

Perchance:
In such a case, the only real evidence I can use to form a conclusion is the other person's word on the issue. If they've lied in the past, I could use that to reject the assertion. Otherwise, I'll probably just shrug my shoulders and give them the benefit of the doubt.

My test on 'why's has always been "How many steps can you go back?" Pretend there's some obnoxious little kid standing around just asking "why?". If you answer him honestly, how many times can you do it before you (A) start repeating yourself, (B) start getting into philosophy, or (C) have to say "I don't know"?

EXAMPLES:
Acceptable:
"Cutting down trees is bad."
"Why?" (1)
"Because trees remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce oxygen."
"Why?" (2)
"Because their life process requires carbon dioxide for respiration, and oxygen is the waste product."
"Why?" (3)
"It probably has something to do with the climate of early earth, and evolutionary pressures."
"Why?" (4)
"Darned if I know."/"Because God put them there to prepare the world for us."/"Because they needed to breathe carbon dioxide instead of oxygen [circular]"

3 'whys' answered (2 answered assertively). The original statement is an acceptably supported conclusion. The actual answers to 'why' can be disputed, but it shows that there's at least a consistant train of thought that can be examined and/or debated as required.

Unacceptable:
"Bigfoot doesn't exist."
"Why?" (1)
"Because it's stupid."
"Why?" (2)
"Because believing in something that doesn't exist is stupid."

1 'why' answered before the subject begins to repeat himself. This is not acceptable; there's nothing here that can be verified or debated, nothing that can be refuted or confirmed. This is not debate-worthy material, and would only be produced by someone who wasn't actually interested in any form of discussion. It's almost a Bandwagon fallacy: "If you believe this, you're stupid. Do you want to be stupid?" as well as an appeal to ridicule. But there's no actual support for the subject's reasoning.

Similar, and also unacceptable (which got me into trouble a LOT).
"You should keep your room clean."
"Why?" (1)
"Because I'm your father/mother" / "Because I say so."
"Why?" (2)
"Because I say so!" / "Don't smart off to me!"

More than 1 why-response is absolutely a necessity for any sort of actual discussion. In this situation, all I wanted was a second, non-circular why-response. 2 why-responses isn't great, but there's at least something there. 3 is generally my personal threshhold. If I can't answer 3 "whys", it's time for me to do some more research.

Burden of proof falls on the person who makes the original claim. In an argument, if I say unicorns exist, and you say they don't, I have to present evidence.

However, this situation is analgolous to you saying 'Unicorns cannot possibly exist', and I say 'Why do you think that?'. The burden of proof is on you to back up your position. I'm not saying 'They do too exist!', at which point the burden of proof would be on me.

It's sorta like Name That Tune. The participants make claims back and forth until one of them says "Ok, prove it." Ideally, that should happen at the very beginning of the discussion, which means the first claim is the one that should be supported. Even if it's just supported with "There's no evidence for it!" At least, at that point, the discussion can progress to evidence as opposed to "Do not!" "Do too!" "Not not not!" "Too too too too!"

Hmmm.

When there's money involved, that's a decision I have to make, and thus increased scrutiny applies. If the only evidence I have is this person's word... say, for example, "I can heal your broken leg through laying on hands, but only if you give me $500." The questions I would ask include "What do you do with the money?" "Have you done this for anyone else?" "Can I speak with them?" "How long does the healing take?" "Can I get my money back if it doesn't work?"

If those questions remain unanswered, I have to make a decision based on what I have... and one person's word, while marginally acceptable in cases that don't actually cost me anything, is not worth a $500 investment. I'm sure this claim could be tested one way or another without me having to give up my own personal money.

As for the 'you just have to BELIEVE' thing... *shrug* If you say so. As long as you're not requiring me to make an immediate decision about how to spend my resources, I suppose I could buy the idea that some things require faith to be exhibited. If you say "Believe, and I will heal your broken leg", I'll offer up my leg. If you say "Believe, and give me $500, and I'll heal your leg", you get subjected to the same scrutiny as above. Anyone who doesn't like me asking those questions gets a 'prior experience' mark on the Liar Chart.

To accept or reject a claim, I must have evidence. In neither of the above cases am I accepting or rejecting the proffered claim. I'm merely accepting a test, or declining a test based on insufficient resources or a negative investment potential I'm not willing to risk. I'm not saying to the $500 person "I don't believe you, you can't do that!". I'm saying "I don't believe your services are a wise investment of resources for me; the hassle of a broken leg outwighs the potential hassle of being $500 short on my rent and ALSO have a broken leg, which, going by the evidence you've provided me, is a definite risk."

Veil of Fire

Oolon, pheb:

Your points are well-taken, but don't exactly fit this situation.

You reject a claim because you have a REASON to, whether based on previous failed tests or relevant background knowledge. You can answer at least 2 whys.

"There's no scorpion under my chair."
"Why?" (1)
"Because it's unlikely that there are scorpions in Manchester."
"Why?" (2)
"Because the climate is inhospitable to them."
[etc]

My entire problem is with people who will not/can not answer the second 'why'. "It's stupid." "Because it just is!" "Because it's just too silly to be true!"

No background, no prior experience, not even anecdotal evidence ("My brother went to Lourdes, and he still died, THAT'S why I think it's stupid.").

Oolon: I'm at work, and don't have time to go through your claims one by one... but, in short, if I'm not required to make an immediate decision, and the only evidence I have supporting or refuting those claims is your word, why should I make a conclusion either way? Now if I were sick, and had to make a decision, the questions given to the $500 Faith Healer apply, in an effort to get some handhold to make a judgement from.

Reasonable Doubt:
My motto in all those cases is "Well, for all I know..."

I have no evidence refuting, some dubious evidence supporting, and a few anecdotes from people I personally know both for and against. That pool of information is not large enough to form a conclusion.

So, to answer your question, no, there's nothing I completely discount without some form of information on the subject. Atlantis on the bottom of the Atlantic? Could be; I'm not an Oceanographer. Yeti? For all I know. I've never looked for one, and I'm not a biologist. Plants have feelings? Well, if you say so. I have no empirical information with which to contradict it or support it.

MrDarwin

I believe the arguments we've been having are more along these lines:

"Bigfoot doesn't exist."
"Why?"
"Because there's no credible evidence."
"Can you prove that there is no credible evidence?"
"Can you give me any reason why I should believe in Bigfoot?"
"I asked you first. Don't evade the question."

And this is where we get frustrated.

Corwin

Veil... let's talk real estate. I can get you in on the ground floor.... it'll be great!!!!

** wishes more people had veil's 'open-mindedness...' could make a killing in real estate... **

Veil of Fire

Mr Darwin:
I don't see it that way. I've gone back to look at the original threads, and only after many post that look just like my example was the 'no credible evidence' stance brought up. Until then, and even after then, it was a big ridicule-fest.


I suppose my insistance on something solid to base a conclusion on (which 'no evidence for' is not) might have pissed some people off. But, if they were on the up-and-up, my "I can play with this too" thread should have had aforementioned people supporting me. I specifically chose my statement to be something there was no real evidence for or against. It's obvious that some people only reject claims based on 'no credible evidence' when it's a claim they personally dislike.

[edit: Corwin: Do you *ever* actually enter a discussion to participate productively, or are you always just looking to incite something?]

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Veil of Fire:
Thanks for the response. I remain interested in the extent to which you generalize (extrapolate from) those conclusions you do make. My attitude is best described by the Dr. Barbara Forrest quote I shared in the "Skepticism and Disbelief" thread. Take care.