Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Anyone ever witness any unexplained/paranormal activity while observing? (excluding UFOs)

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
281 replies to this topic

#276 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,499
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 07 May 2017 - 11:39 PM

A few things.
I hope none of you have to ever be in a situation where you have to see teams of medical specialists after specialists because you or a loved one is suffering from an ailment that borders on science's current level of understanding and competence.
But the operational idea:

Clearly, logically, the latter is more likely to be true (by several orders of magnitude). We can rule out ....... to begin with based on simple logic about what is more vs. less likely.

Doesn't always quite cut it.

 

Sure it can be a simple short-cut for the lazy man.
But if your life or the life of a loved one was on the line, I'd bet you wouldn't want doctors presuming only based on "logic" and "what is most likely."
Especially if without anyone's knowledge the situation was not the one that would be "most likely," but maybe even of the rarest variety, that if left in the assumption of the norm case, would mean the loss of life.
It doesn't require too much research to be able to find case after case where falling back on the "more v. less likely" finds its limitation.

Even limit your search to current medical diagnosis alone.....

 

Hence what I presume to be references in former posts to funding and priorities for "more research."

 

Combined with the view:

"they will eventually be discovered an explained, and become another part of our knowledge about the universe....."

is a nice little dream to portion out to someone else,

but I bet you wouldn't want your doctors, or the doctors of your child, to throw that out concerning finding some treatment to save a life from a rare illness.

 

I have no dog in the fight either way about ghosts and such,
but I also can quickly see the limitations of what science can do, especially in context,

to living during a time even now where scientific understanding about countless things is still in the stone ages.

Concerning the statement:
 

And how about the idea that these are transitory phenomena and that they are hard to investigate? Not true. We have the equipment and know how to find evidence of neutrinos, gravitational waves, and planets in orbit around distant stars. Really, we can't figure out how to tell if we are being visited by space ships?

I don't care to feel like I need to defend the contrary,

even what may seem absurd notion of "space ships",
but I do caution the arrogance that is in the root premise of the above statement.
Although relatively speaking we may be further ahead of our predecessors in history as far as tech and discoveries,
if scientists don't have a solid dose of humility when evaluating matters,

they might just fall into the traps that hinders true science.
Human history is ripe with examples of arrogance that hindered investigations and discoveries because "we were already so convinced we were familiar with the issue".....

 

So yes, especially in matters of degree,

one may consider the "likely v. unlikely" in investigations into phenomena.
We can hope that authentic investigation and science with integrity will pursue areas until better discoveries are made.....
And we can hold a bit of confidence that we now are in a better state to evaluate some matters than maybe those of the past......

 

However, none of that in the name of science,

should give excuse for discounting any passions to investigate any field further utilizing what means science has at its reach at present and considering that science in the future might necessarily be even more well equipped to deal with matters,

that we at the moment may have no real clue about....

 

I'm sure any one of us would rather doctors spend efforts further investigating our case,
especially if there is even a hint that it entails matters where medical science still has much to learn,
rather than discounting the rare possibility on the basis that "clearly the most likely" is always the case.....
Especially if it entails matters of life and death.

 

Sure "science" can be all "safe" and "sterile" and hide in the lab.

But honestly we deal with the limitations of the "scientific method" every day,

and we can't just think it is this perfect superhero that can always give us a supreme predictive knowledge of what is myth and what is real, without a thorough examination into the matter.

 

And that is without need for any slight to how science works or how scientists conduct themselves.....



#277 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 08 May 2017 - 12:13 AM

A few things.
I hope none of you have to ever be in a situation where you have to see teams of medical specialists after specialists because you or a loved one is suffering from an ailment that borders on science's current level of understanding and competence.
But the operational idea:

Clearly, logically, the latter is more likely to be true (by several orders of magnitude). We can rule out ....... to begin with based on simple logic about what is more vs. less likely.

Doesn't always quite cut it.

 

Sure it can be a simple short-cut for the lazy man.
But if your life or the life of a loved one was on the line, I'd bet you wouldn't want doctors presuming only based on "logic" and "what is most likely."
Especially if without anyone's knowledge the situation was not the one that would be "most likely," but maybe even of the rarest variety, that if left in the assumption of the norm case, would mean the loss of life.
It doesn't require too much research to be able to find case after case where falling back on the "more v. less likely" finds its limitation.

Even limit your search to current medical diagnosis alone.....

 

Hence what I presume to be references in former posts to funding and priorities for "more research."

 

Combined with the view:

"they will eventually be discovered an explained, and become another part of our knowledge about the universe....."

is a nice little dream to portion out to someone else,

but I bet you wouldn't want your doctors, or the doctors of your child, to throw that out concerning finding some treatment to save a life from a rare illness.

 

I have no dog in the fight either way about ghosts and such,
but I also can quickly see the limitations of what science can do, especially in context,

to living during a time even now where scientific understanding about countless things is still in the stone ages.

Concerning the statement:
 

And how about the idea that these are transitory phenomena and that they are hard to investigate? Not true. We have the equipment and know how to find evidence of neutrinos, gravitational waves, and planets in orbit around distant stars. Really, we can't figure out how to tell if we are being visited by space ships?

I don't care to feel like I need to defend the contrary,

even what may seem absurd notion of "space ships",
but I do caution the arrogance that is in the root premise of the above statement.
Although relatively speaking we may be further ahead of our predecessors in history as far as tech and discoveries,
if scientists don't have a solid dose of humility when evaluating matters,

they might just fall into the traps that hinders true science.
Human history is ripe with examples of arrogance that hindered investigations and discoveries because "we were already so convinced we were familiar with the issue".....

 

So yes, especially in matters of degree,

one may consider the "likely v. unlikely" in investigations into phenomena.
We can hope that authentic investigation and science with integrity will pursue areas until better discoveries are made.....
And we can hold a bit of confidence that we now are in a better state to evaluate some matters than maybe those of the past......

 

However, none of that in the name of science,

should give excuse for discounting any passions to investigate any field further utilizing what means science has at its reach at present and considering that science in the future might necessarily be even more well equipped to deal with matters,

that we at the moment may have no real clue about....

 

I'm sure any one of us would rather doctors spend efforts further investigating our case,
especially if there is even a hint that it entails matters where medical science still has much to learn,
rather than discounting the rare possibility on the basis that "clearly the most likely" is always the case.....
Especially if it entails matters of life and death.

 

Sure "science" can be all "safe" and "sterile" and hide in the lab.

But honestly we deal with the limitations of the "scientific method" every day,

and we can't just think it is this perfect superhero that can always give us a supreme predictive knowledge of what is myth and what is real, without a thorough examination into the matter.

 

And that is without need for any slight to how science works or how scientists conduct themselves.....

 

 

I'm afraid there's more bad assumptions here. I guess people are naturally inclined to focus on the attitudes of other people, particularly if they think it means that someone is behaving in a way that is unjustifiably superior or something. But I think this natural tendency to wish people to show humility and be decent is clouding judgment about how science works.

 

So, to take the medical example, I will argue the contrary to the point being made.

 

First, I didn't not argue that logic is the only criterion for choosing between options. Logic is a necessary but not sufficient condition for scientific progress.

 

Science: 1. Make an observation about some phenomenon; 2. make a guess about why it happens; 3. deduce a prediction that must be true if the guess is true; and 4. Compare to observation again, or preferably experiment.

 

The paranormal typically doesn't get past 1 because the "evidence" for the observation is so poor, unreliable, and invalid that it can't be judged to be a real phenomenon or not. On those cases where we get past 1 and test for the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, the vast majority of the time there's no evidence at all, let alone any credible explanation.

 

But then lets consider logic with respect to a physician working at the edge of knowledge trying to figure out a diagnosis.

 

The reason you can take your kid with a rare disease to a hospital and stand a chance of getting a diagnosis is precisely because those physicians have training that enables them to generate logical hypotheses about diagnoses. They then test whether their diagnosis is correct by following that scientific process I just outlined.

 

If I had a kid with a rare disease, I would want trained physicians who use logic about what is the most likely differential diagnosis, and then using the most reliable and valid tests available to confirm diagnosis. I'd then want them to offer treatment based on scientific evidence regarding what is most likely to be effective.

 

If it proves to be the case that the kid has a new disease not hitherto discovered, then I still want arrogant physicians who use logic and follow the scientific method. They are going to look for evidence that the disease displays symptoms not seen before, they are going to compare those symptoms to related diseases, and they are going to find evidence to demonstrate that the disease in question is indeed different from what was previously known. After this they will generate guesses about what the most likely causes are, and then subject their guesses to the scientific process.

 

What might you suggest they do instead? Bring in a nice guy physician who has no idea what he's doing, but who has an impeccable bed side manner? Personally, I'll take the most intolerably arrogant bugger you can find--get me that Dr. House guy!

 

As you can see, there's an awful lot of logic in here about what is more vs. less likely and it is key to discovering what is true.

 

And it doesn't matter one bit what the attitude of the physician is so long as they are right. They may be insufferably arrogant jerks who make all kinds of assumptions about what is and is not true. That's very much beside the point about discovering the truth. Being a terrible bed side manner, sure. But bad for finding the truth, I don't think so.



#278 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,499
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 08 May 2017 - 11:46 AM

I'm afraid there's more bad assumptions here. I guess people are naturally inclined to focus on the attitudes of other people, particularly if they think it means that someone is behaving in a way that is unjustifiably superior or something. But I think this natural tendency to wish people to show humility and be decent is clouding judgment about how science works.

 

Your "attitude clear affected your ability to read the post you responded to in regard to detail.

attitudes affect priorities>priorities affect decisions>decisions affect outcomes.....

 

First, I didn't not argue that logic is the only criterion for choosing between options. Logic is a necessary but not sufficient condition for scientific progress.

Who said you said that logic was the only criterion?

Agreed logic is a necessary but not sufficient condition for scientific progress.

 

The paranormal typically doesn't get past 1 because the "evidence" for the observation is so poor, unreliable, and invalid that it can't be judged to be a real phenomenon or not. On those cases where we get past 1 and test for the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, the vast majority of the time there's no evidence at all, let alone any credible explanation.

Please inform me of how you determined this quantitative analysis of "typically doesn't get past"......

Is this based on actual investigation???

Or is this an argument from a per-determined personal and anecdotal assessment of the issue?

 

Regardless of not ideal conditions, which also can often take place when a patient presents themselves to a physician, BTW,

the point of the post you are reacting to is how PRIORITIES of further investigation can be BIASED BY ATTITUDE and thus BE ABANDONED without further proper investigation, ---a proper investigation which is a reasonable expectation for those who practice science.....

 

.....If I had a kid with a rare disease, I would want trained physicians who use logic about what is the most likely differential diagnosis, and then using the most reliable and valid tests available to confirm diagnosis. I'd then want them to offer treatment based on scientific evidence regarding what is most likely to be effective.

I don't know what your point is here except maybe using rhetoric for your point to be persuasive.

Where did someone make a statement to the contrary?

 

What might you suggest they do instead? Bring in a nice guy physician who has no idea what he's doing, but who has an impeccable bed side manner? Personally, I'll take the most intolerably arrogant bugger you can find--get me that Dr. House guy!

This response betrays you lack of attention to detail in reading the post you are responding to, or at least ability to reason fairly.

 

As you can see, there's an awful lot of logic in here about what is more vs. less likely and it is key to discovering what is true.

???? who said logic was not necessary????
They may be insufferably arrogant jerks who make all kinds of assumptions about what is and is not true. That's very much beside the point about discovering the truth. Being a terrible bed side manner, sure. But bad for finding the truth, I don't think so.

And it doesn't matter one bit what the attitude of the physician is so long as they are right.

You equivocate on the meaning of "attitude" to fit your situation.

An attitude of "I've seen this before, I'm sure I know my diagnosis is right" necessarily will shape the priorities and thus decisions made on what direction INVESTIGATION will take going further....

In the same way predetermined biases about a phenomena shape your opinion of whether it is even "worthy" to pursue further investigation.

You may argue efficiency, but many scientific achievements have resulted from efforts contrary to efficiency.....



#279 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 08 May 2017 - 01:55 PM

I'm starting to think that I ought to have started with your tag line and worked backwards. :-)

 

Your opening opinion was the argument that:

 

"But if your life or the life of a loved one was on the line, I'd bet you wouldn't want doctors presuming only based on "logic" and "what is most likely."

 

"Only", of course not. If we want to figure out what is true we use a combination of logic and the scientific method. I thought I was clear about that. Having said that, many things are so unlikely that keeping them as viable hypotheses to investigate is almost certainly a waste of time. If someone wants to investigate crop circles, Bigfoot, or alien abductions, they are welcome to do so. It's just that it is far more likely that crop circles are made by rambunctious hippies, that Bigfoot is some guy in a make-shift gorilla suit, and that people who claim that they have been abducted by aliens are telling lies to get media attention. But none of those things is remotely interesting for science, so no scientists worth their salt is likely to investigate.

 

You continue:

 

"Especially if without anyone's knowledge the situation was not the one that would be "most likely," but maybe even of the rarest variety, that if left in the assumption of the norm case, would mean the loss of life. It doesn't require too much research to be able to find case after case where falling back on the "more v. less likely" finds its limitation.
Even limit your search to current medical diagnosis alone....."

 

I believe that's an error of logic because we typically must choose between hypothesized causes. Giving equal weight to likely and unlikely explanations wastes time and increases the likelihood that someone will suffer complications. 

 

I also think your medical argument is designed to be emotional rather than logical. Specifically, you referred to the case of a child with a rare disease, and seem to think that dismissing unlikely explanations is a flaw. I argued--and I think demonstrated--that dismissing unlikely explanations is key to finding out what is true.

 

Take another example and lets tie together some paranormal and medicine for fun.

 

A child presents with a very poor complexion, projectile vomiting of something that looks like bad guacamole, and has surprisingly mobile neck movement.

 

Diagnosis 1: She is possessed of an evil spirit that is communicating with the living through the child.

 

Treatment 1: Find a priest and perform an immediate exorcism.

 

Diagnosis 2: She has bacterial gastroenteritis and is suffering from muscle cramps;

 

Treatment 2: Administer intravenous salts and fluids immediately. Call for a psychiatrist for further opinions.

 

Any physician who did not rule out diagnosis 1 immediately should have their medical licence revoked. But according to your logic, we mustn't rule out unlikely explanations because doing so leads to error and is the province of the "lazy" and "arrogant".  

 

But we go with the most likely diagnosis, we attempt treatment, and if that does not work, we develop a new hypothesis, again based on what is most likely and proceed in the same fashion. Hopefully our logic and tests get us to the right answer before the kid suffers un-treatable complications or expires.

 

So, like I said, we can rule out things based on logic; not only can we do this, we should if we want to find out root causes. If it turns out that the likely explanations do not work, then we can always go back to the crazy hypotheses. They will rarely work out, but if that's all you've got . . . 



#280 Crow Haven

Crow Haven

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,574
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2009

Posted 08 May 2017 - 02:13 PM

Ah...the good old days....  https://www.youtube....h?v=zrzMhU_4m-g



#281 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006

Posted 08 May 2017 - 04:35 PM

Take another example and lets tie together some paranormal and medicine for fun.

 

A child presents with a very poor complexion, projectile vomiting of something that looks like bad guacamole, and has surprisingly mobile neck movement.

 

Diagnosis 1: She is possessed of an evil spirit that is communicating with the living through the child.

 

 

Well, if by "surprisingly mobile neck movement" you means the child rotates their head 360 degrees followed by cursing at me in a guttural animal voice...well then yes diagnosis 1 is probably spot-on as those particular symptoms do not appear in any medical text I know of lol.gif  I mean seriously, you would ask a doctor for a diagnosis of this!! https://www.youtube....h?v=C25XpOhKhBU

 

This is funny - https://www.youtube....h?v=FWpexjAyG8w


Edited by BillP, 08 May 2017 - 04:42 PM.


#282 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 08 May 2017 - 05:47 PM

 

Take another example and lets tie together some paranormal and medicine for fun.

 

A child presents with a very poor complexion, projectile vomiting of something that looks like bad guacamole, and has surprisingly mobile neck movement.

 

Diagnosis 1: She is possessed of an evil spirit that is communicating with the living through the child.

 

 

Well, if by "surprisingly mobile neck movement" you means the child rotates their head 360 degrees followed by cursing at me in a guttural animal voice...well then yes diagnosis 1 is probably spot-on as those particular symptoms do not appear in any medical text I know of lol.gif  I mean seriously, you would ask a doctor for a diagnosis of this!! https://www.youtube....h?v=C25XpOhKhBU

 

This is funny - https://www.youtube....h?v=FWpexjAyG8w

 

 

I couldn't help myself. :-)

 

I recommend "scary movie 2 exorcist scene" . . . a bit racy for our family friendly environment. 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics