|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2011 : 00:18:28 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck,
If you are saying that you haven't used the term in a derogatory fashion, then you'll have to explain your many repetitions of "I'm no critical thinker" (or some variation on that theme) and your unnecessary capitalization. I'm familiar enough with your writing style, I think, to detect derision and sarcasm there.
You said:
bngbuck
The method (CT) is the best available for many such claims. There are some (like Le Penseur's) on which it doesn't work, as we have seen. Most importantly, I feel that beginning any investigation requires a complete lack of prejudice. |
It most certainly does work for LP's claims. The fact that you can't proceed beyond the lack of evidence isn't a fault with the process of critical thinking, it's a fault with LP's claims. Critical thinking doesn't break down when there is no evidence, it just informs you to discard the claim that isn't supported. You can't assign a truth value, so you set it aside.
Also, there is no such thing as a complete lack of prejudice. You can only do your best to minimize bias. In the case of people like LP, it isn't prejudice, but overwhelming experience, that informs me to laugh at them. I'm open to one of them coming up with something compelling and/or potentially interesting, maybe deserving a closer look, but LP showed signs early of being nothing more than a deluded fool. The part where he claims privileged information and is willing to "teach" us should have clued you in as well. Cult religious bullshit like that is of no value. If he had evidence, of any kind, he could easily make his case convincing. But that thread went 40ish pages, no evidence of any kind was produced to support him ever having really been abducted by aliens, so there is no need to kick it off here in this thread.
I need some education on the nature of Critical Thinking. I would like to ask Dude several questions:
1. Many of the descriptions of the application of CT mention the necessity of evidence.
Please define evidence as required for CT analysis of the truth value of propositions.
2. Is God (typical fundie God) defined as impossible by full analysis using CT?
|
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?
I'll answer these two, but if you want to extend this further then you will have to answer a couple of questions yourself.
1. Really? There are entire fields of study and PhD programs that deal with this type of epistemic question. Leaving all that aside, the best answer I can give is that evidence is anything that allows you to assign truth values to assertions. The question I think you really want to ask here is how do you determine what is and isn't evidence for a specific assertion? It depends on the assertion and who you are trying to convince. There is still no simple answer, but the further away you get from established knowledge the more demanding your burden of proof becomes.
If I say that my car will go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds, all I have to do is take it to the dragstrip and produce the required evidence. I don't have to provide evidence for how a stopwatch or cars function, those are already established.
If I want to say that the DNA binding ability of HSF1, in response to cellular stress, is dependent on the phosphorylation of multiple lysine residues by a series of protein kinases, then I have to demonstrate loss of function by changing those lysines into arginine (similar amino acid with regard to shape and charge, but can't be phosphorylated) one at a time, then testing the DNA binding ability of my mutated HSF1. Then I have to provide a control experiment, and a negative control experiment, and....
...you get where this is going? The burden of proof is different depending on the assertion you are making. You want to assert aliens are visiting earth, then you have a a list of assertions to support before you even get to "aliens are visiting earth". You have to show that aliens are real, that it is possible to travel from where they live to here, and so on. That is the reason why most people will dismiss this type of claim out of hand. If they realize it or not, they understand that the assertion rests on a series of unproven assertions and requires Sagan's extraordinary evidence, something that can satisfy all those unevidenced assertions at once.
2. Bad question. Impossible to test, sure. Impossible? I don't know. Irrelevant given that you can't test the assertion. But religious claims are all like that. A more satisfying answer is that human deities are an anthropological phenomenon. They change over time along with the cultures in which they are found. After thousands of years of searching by millions of people, you'd think we'd have better evidence for deities than "some guy said he spoke with god/deity/whatever". "Special revelation" is code for "lets part some suckers from their money", if you ask me.
Your turn.
1. How do you calculate that gravity faries being responsible for gravity has a probability greater than zero?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 12:21:17 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
There are some (like Le Penseur's) on which it doesn't work, as we have seen. |
Thing about le Penseur is that his claim that he was abducted must still be supported with evidence. His stories are interesting (what he told of them anyhow, and of which I have an interest in) but they still can't be taken as evidence for alien abduction without something to support them. But yeah. Calls for evidence from someone like him is an exercise in futility. But attempts to understand him is also of interest to skeptics, (at least this skeptic) and can be of value when placed in the larger context of why people have strange beliefs. That's not to say that he wasn't abducted, though I doubt it. But lacking supporting evidence, there is no way to determine the truth value of his claim. And given that his claim is extraordinary, and because of what we know about memory and physics and other related areas where evidence does exist, as skeptics, we have good reason to doubt his claim. And that doubt also stems from our ability to think critically and is evidence based. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 13:38:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
There are some (like Le Penseur's) on which it doesn't work, as we have seen. |
But attempts to understand him is also of interest to skeptics, (at least this skeptic) and can be of value when placed in the larger context of why people have strange beliefs. That's not to say that he wasn't abducted, though I doubt it. But lacking supporting evidence, there is no way to determine the truth value of his claim. And given that his claim is extraordinary, and because of what we know about memory and physics and other related areas where evidence does exist, as skeptics, we have good reason to doubt his claim.
|
My first impresson of le Penseur's stories gave me no reason to doubt that he really believed he had been abducted (without assigning any truth-value to the abduction as a real event). I mean, there are lot of delusional people out there. His descriptions and statements about UFO-videos and stuff, made me form a hypothesis that could possibly explain his experiences, but as the thread progressed I became more convinced that he was just fishing for abuse, with bngbuck as a willing cheerleader and moral support. Bngbuck having already badmouthed practically the entire SFN-membership, painting us as adversaries, and le Penseur obviously picked up on that.
I still want to hear more of le Penseur's story/ies to see if there's more to support my hypothesis. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2011 : 19:36:55 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Dude
If you are saying that you haven't used the term in a derogatory fashion, then you'll have to explain your many repetitions of "I'm no critical thinker" (or some variation on that theme) and your unnecessary capitalization. I'm familiar enough with your writing style, I think, to detect derision and sarcasm there.
|
Lacking ESP, I cannot explain your interpretation of my writing other than to say that you misread me. Your inferences are completely beyond my control. However, I will attempt to reduce my implicative language and punctuation.
I simply do not apply the precepts of critical thinking, as I have understood them, to much of what I contemplate. That is one reason why I say:bngbuck
I need some education on the nature of Critical Thinking. I would like to ask Dude several questions: |
Perhaps I could benefit by using CT more if could understand some things that I have not yet understood. If your preference is to argue rather than inform, I guess we can do that too. But I would rather learn.Dude
It most certainly does work for LP's claims. |
Well, besides myself, several members presumably adept in CT admitted that acceptable evidence was not yet forthcoming at the time LP was suspended. Yet at least several "veteran" members (to use your term) wanted him to stay according to one of SFN owners. In retrospect, it appears to me that if the exercise of CT had been held in abeyance for a while, and the demands for evidence postponed, we would have had a better chance to possibly eventually receive evidence - if indeed such evidence existed.
Requests for live or dead aliens to be delivered to a member's doorstep were a bit over the top. Abusive or derogatory adjectives were employed in posts to LP quite early in the thread. Did critical thinking lead to this commentary?
And I was totally wrong in "poisoning the well" (to use Mabuse's term,) in the early stages of the commentary. My attempt to persuade LP to not quit, ultimately contributed to his quitting - or in goading Dave into suspending him. I did not want that, and I was a damn fool for, in part, causing it.
Perhaps, if I better accepted and used the strictures of Critical Thinking, I would not make foolish mistakes such as this was. I am sorry, because I damaged my own effort to keep LP here! |
Dude
The part where he claims privileged information and is willing to "teach" us should have clued you in as well. |
It not only did not clue me in, it made me want to hear more. Hardly a day goes by that I do not learn from one person or another who offers information with which he is privileged and I am not. Would CT have dissuaded me from this reaction of wishing to hear more?
All in all, the whole reception of LP was rather badly handled, and I was an integral part of that garbled reception. The premature reflexive demand for evidence was another integral part of that failing. And therein lies one of my problems with the application of critical thinking, not necessarily the nature of the methodology.Dude
The fact that you can't proceed beyond the lack of evidence isn't a fault with the process of critical thinking, it's a fault with LP's claims. |
Because so much time and space was wasted in argumentation, we never found out if any real evidence could be forthcoming. And it was at least unclear to me what the nature of that evidence could practically be.Dude
it's a fault with LP's claims. |
Then we should have told him in the very first response to his OP: "If you did not bring evidence of a material nature that can be conclusively analyzed as "alien" - from your adventures many years ago when you were abducted as a child - then stop posting now or we will ban or suspend or at least ignore you" - Is this what you mean?Dude
You can't assign a truth value, so you set it aside. |
Immediately? Dude
it isn't prejudice, but overwhelming experience, that informs me to laugh at them. |
Is this part of the Critical Thinking process? Overwhelming experience? Kind of like Copernicus?Dude
but LP showed signs early of being nothing more than a deluded fool. |
Does CT assist in making such judgments?Dude
If he had evidence, of any kind, he could easily make his case convincing. |
Can you specifically and precisely define what - in a reaistic and practical form - that evidence would be?. Evidence that he could and should have obtained while abducted?Dude
But that thread went 40ish pages, no evidence of any kind was produced |
Because most of the 40 pages were devoted to argumentation. I cannot believe that that was because Critical Thinking was being fully utilized by all of those arguing with LP. Was it? Dude
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine? |
a.You want to argue about CT rather than teach?
b.You haven't waited long enough for me to answer your one question? (I am unaware of others than the "fairy" question)
c. Because you are a stubborn person and you can answer or not as you damn well please?
d. All of the above, one or more of the above, or something else?
Again, without ESP, I am stumped. But I am not critically thinking, so help me.
Dude
I'll answer these two, but if you want to extend this further then you will have to answer a couple of questions yourself. |
That's gracious of you and I'll be happy to answer all you care to ask including giving you my encyclopaedic store of knowledge concerning green fairies!
Dude
1.A Evidence is anything that allows you to assign truth values to assertions. |
Dude
1.B It depends on the assertion and who you are trying to convince. |
OK. So, for example, I say to you: "It is my opinion that some UBIAP(Unexplained But Investigated Aerial Phenomena) may be examples of extraterrestrial visitation."
You respond: "Give me evidence that the specific UBIAP to which you refer may be ET visitation. That evidence must allow me to give truth values to your opinion that UAP may be ET in nature."
I ask you: "Please tell me the specific contents that such evidence must contain to satisfy your requirement--_______________."
At this point, I would have to ask you to fill in the blank, before I can continue.
Dude
2. Bad question. Impossible to test, sure. Impossible? I don't know. Irrelevant |
Dude
1. How do you calculate that gravity faries being responsible for gravity has a probability greater than zero? |
I have pondered your question for many weeks. All I can say is this; Bad question. Impossible to calculate, sure. Impossible? I don't know. Irrelevant.
And as to the practicality of colonic manufacturing of light trucks and their subsequent delivery to consumers by unprecedented peristalsis and anal enlargement, God only knows!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/07/2011 00:41:07 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 05:34:54 [Permalink]
|
Dude will certainly have a more comprehensive reply than I, but I saw this statement and needed to ask a couple questions.
Originally posted by bngbuck
I simply do not apply the precepts of critical thinking, as I have understood them, to much of what I contemplate.
|
What is your approach to determining the truth value of assertions? How effective do you consider this approach?
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 10:29:20 [Permalink]
|
Moakley.....
| What is your approach to determining the truth value of assertions? How effective do you consider this approach? |
If an assertion is commonplace, and is of little interest to me either personally or intellectually, I generally pay no attention to it. Allah akbar. Obama is not a US citizen. Masturbation causes warts. Etc.
If an assertion is of considerable intellectual interest, but does not directly bear on my personal life, I will generally go to considerable lengths to learn more about the topic. Google, wiki, internet references, historical background, newspapers and TV if applicable. If I find the topic really interesting, I will generally buy a book or two on the subject. I have a lot of books.
Generally, I attempt to withold evaluation of the "truth value" of propositions if research indicates that the topic is strongly controversial and there is, to the best of my ability to judge, credibility of expert opinion on both sides (true or not). In making such judgments, I undoubtedly use some or many of the techniques of Critical Thinking - as I have heard it learnedly described here and elswhere - although I may well be unaware that I am doing so. If a preponderance of the qualified opinion on the subject indicate that it may be false or indeterminate, my opinion is liable to become doubtful or uncertain.
Finally, provided that the credibility of "experts" or those very familiar with the subject at hand significantly favors or faults the validity of the claim, I try to form a tenative opinion pro or con that agrees with a majority of credible experts.
If the truth value topic has some form of personal impact upon my personal well-being - health, money, joy of recreation or leisure time, or the like; I try to do all of the above as quickly as possible; and then take some appropriate action to maximize my personal benefit as it may relate to the truth value of the topic subject.
Recently, because of the recession and my age, I have been compelled to make many decisions on both health and money matters. I usually try to get three opinions from MD doctors on health matters such as surgery, plus as much information on the health problem as I can reasonably get on line, before reaching a decision.
With respect to financial matters, it has really been a wild ride in and out of various positions since the onset of the recession. This type of work is extremely time sensitive and frankly is pretty stressful. Decisions on "truth values" are needed almost daily. My life was much more pleasant when I could just sit back and "clip coupons" (live on dividends) years ago. Those days may be gone forever.
I have never found a practical way, all by myself, to unearth absolute, hands and eyes on, evidence of most controversial subjects I must go by what others say.
As to the effectiveness of this approach to education, I don't know what standard to compare it to. I can state this: I am well over 82 years old and quite healthy physically and mentally for my age.
I have been moderately successful in earning and retaining money and have a net worth and cash flow income considerably higher than the national median. I am quite busy doing things that are important to me and a few others, and I am at least as happy as most folks I know and meet. So I guess what I do works for me!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 12:54:56 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
OK. So, for example, I say to you: "It is my opinion that some UBIAP(Unexplained But Investigated Aerial Phenomena) may be examples of extraterrestrial visitation."
You respond: "Give me evidence that the specific UBIAP to which you refer may be ET visitation. That evidence must allow me to give truth values to your opinion that UAP may be ET in nature."
I ask you: "Please tell me the specific contents that such evidence must contain to satisfy your requirement--_______________."
At this point, I would have to ask you to fill in the blank, before I can continue. |
This is actually helpful in understanding what you are saying, so thank you.
There is a problem however. In that scenario you are placing a portion of the burden of proof on me, and that is not appropriate. The claimant is responsible for satisfying all of that burden.
What you have to bring to the table is your evidence and why you think it is evidence. Others then evaluate it in the context of your claim and argument, and if they find your arguments valid and your evidence compelling (no other more plausible explanation), then you will likely convince them. If you don't bring your evidence and arguments, and instead ask me what I think the evidence should be, you get laughed at. Claim dismissed, next!
When you ask me what would constitute evidence of alien visitation you are stepping out of bounds. You are asking me to accept, presumptively, all of the premises that would make it possible for aliens to actually show up here on earth and be responsible for UAP/abductions/whatever. That they exist, that they have technology capable of getting them here, that they are so far in advance of us that they can remain undetected with high fidelity, that they leave no detectable trace evidence during their visits, (in LPs specific case) that other dimensions exist, that those places can support life, that the population of those places can travel the multiverse at will, that they can come here in numbers and leave no trace, that they can interact with the US government in an official capacity and we can keep that a secret for 60 years... and so on.
There is also another glaringly obvious problem, simply that I have no fucking clue what would really constitute evidence of aliens (other than having one land and say hello, or a piece of alien tech, or a corpse). How would I? Given the range of life found on just this planet, how could I possibly speculate on this question beyond those things that would obviously settle the debate? NASA has trouble with this question when it is us looking for life on other planets! Will we recognize it if we find it?
But the biggest problem is this: The assumption that any UAP could be an alien. That isn't how things work. You have said, ideally, that any investigation should start entirely free from prejudice, yet you want to presume that UAP could be aliens? Do you see the problem there?
Do you know what a telomere is? Its the little bit of DNA at the end of chromosomes, it folds over and protects the ends from random reactions inside the cell, preventing damage to the ends of your chromosomes. They typically shorten with every round of cell division, sort of like a counter on how many times a cell is allowed to divide. Yet in some tissues, and some species, telomere length is maintained, it doesn't shorten. When scientists went looking for the reason (they won a Nobel in 2009 for their efforts) they didn't start with any presumption about what caused this. They started with the simple observation that some telomeres don't shorten, then intensified their observations of telomeres (experiments designed to detect things that interact with telomeres) and eventually worked out that it was an enzyme, which they named telomerase, that maintained telomere length.
When you have an unexplained phenomenon, you can't start looking for the cause if you make an assumption about that cause. You start by simply intensifying your observations. If those scientists who uncovered telomerase had started with an assumption that rested on several other unevidenced assumptions about the cause of telomeres maintaining length, do you think they would have ever produced meaningful results? Doubtful at the least.
When you first dropped into these forums, in the very first thread you ever started here, I said that the first step in investigating UAP (if it was really worth any one's time and money to do it) would be pointing a bunch of high definition video cameras at the sky. If you had unlimited funds, launch a dozen low orbit satellites with high resolution optics pointed down to whatever altitude you think UAP are most likely to happen. You have to build a large set of observations, with high fidelity recordings, of things unexplainable by normal events. Human eye witness testimony is insufficient.
So you have to decide what question you want to answer. Do you want to discover the cause of UAP, or do you want to waste time and effort looking for evidence that supports your presumtion of the cause?
Only one of those is worth your time, the other will never ger you a meaningful answer.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 21:14:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
When you ask me what would constitute evidence of alien visitation you are stepping out of bounds. You are asking me to accept, presumptively, all of the premises that would make it possible for aliens to actually show up here on earth and be responsible for UAP/abductions/whatever. That they exist, that they have technology capable of getting them here, that they are so far in advance of us that they can remain undetected with high fidelity, that they leave no detectable trace evidence during their visits, (in LPs specific case) that other dimensions exist, that those places can support life, that the population of those places can travel the multiverse at will, that they can come here in numbers and leave no trace, that they can interact with the US government in an official capacity and we can keep that a secret for 60 years... and so on. |
It couldn't hurt to emphasize this even more, because not only are you being asked to accept that these premises are true, you're being asked to accept that our current science is very much false.
I tried to get this point across before, and failed. We don't think that faster-than-light travel (for example) is impossible only because we haven't figured out how to do it yet. We think FTL travel is impossible because our current, empirically tested and re-tested scientific knowledge gives us several good reasons to conclude that it's impossible in any practical sense.
So we're not just being asked to accept that some new science might come along (which, by itself, nobody would reject), we're being asked to accept that our current science will be dramatically overturned, something that hasn't happened in any significant way in over 100 years. Einstein didn't even do that to Newton.
The burden of proof is certainly not on the person asking for evidence of these sorts of science-busting skills or technologies. The number of unspoken premises is huge, and includes many assumptions that what we think we know is not only incomplete, but flat-out wrong. Evidence must be brought out for those premises first, since without their foundation, the whole logical edifice crumbles. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 07:13:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The burden of proof is certainly not on the person asking for evidence of these sorts of science-busting skills or technologies. The number of unspoken premises is huge, and includes many assumptions that what we think we know is not only incomplete, but flat-out wrong. Evidence must be brought out for those premises first, since without their foundation, the whole logical edifice crumbles.
|
Also, once we start talking about aliens that can transmit thoughts, and mind control, then we expand the number of premises into another huge area of "thought" unrelated to the exobiology, or FTL-travel.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 18:37:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. I certainly feel that you are making a sincere effort to explain the critical thinking concept. I still need clarification on several issues:| There is a problem however. In that scenario you are placing a portion of the burden of proof on me, and that is not appropriate. The claimant is responsible for satisfying all of that burden. |
What is the logically inescapable mandate of critical thinking that dictates what procedures are "appropriate" and what are not? It sounds like some silly game, or debate, in which there are arbitrary rules that must be followed but which do not necessarily relate to the truth that is being searched.| If you don't bring your evidence and arguments, and instead ask me what I think the evidence should be, you get laughed at. Claim dismissed, next! |
Why does a search for knowledge, truth, or information have to be adversarial in nature or cast into the context of court litigation - or end in one party belittling another? Is this a necessary part of the critical thinking process?| You are asking me to accept, presumptively, all of the premises that would make it possible for aliens to actually show up here on earth That they exist, that they have technology capable of getting them here, that they can come here in numbers and leave no trace, that they can interact with the US government in an official capacity and we can keep that a secret for 60 years... and so on. |
Well, LP may be asking you all of those things (and more) but I certainly am not. All I am asking is this:
Is there anything - that is possible to produce - that would persuade you to wait a while and listen to additional narrative before reaching final conclusions regarding delusion on the part of alien-claimers?| There is also another glaringly obvious problem, simply that I have no fucking clue what would really constitute evidence of aliens (other than having one land and say hello, or a piece of alien tech, or a corpse) |
Well, that pretty well answers my question. Critical thinking dictates to Dude that only a live alien, a dead alien, or an example of advanced alien technology would constitute evidence. OK. That educates me a lot! Has anyone presented you with information concerning live aliens, dead aliens, or alien technology? | When you have an unexplained phenomenon, you can't start looking for the cause if you make an assumption about that cause. You start by simply intensifying your observations. |
That's fair enough, I made a mistake in suggesting in my first example that:| It is my opinion that some UBIAP (Unexplained But Investigated Aerial Phenomena) may be examples of extraterrestrial visitation." |
I should have said: "It is my opinion that there have been many examples of things moving across the sky that have been deeply investigated and not conclusively identified.
Do you have curiosity as to whether there is any truth value to that opinion." |
And then ask you to apply Critical Thinking to my question and answer accordingly......?
With respect to....| When you have an unexplained phenomenon, you can't start looking for the cause if you make an assumption about that cause. You start by simply intensifying your observations |
....where in the application of the Scientific Method to the investigation of an unexplained phenomenon, does the "assumption" that the scientist has about the unexplained phenomena become a "hypothesis"? Or is critical thinking not necessarily part of the Scientific Method?
For a new, and better, example of my confusion abour critical thinking:
Note: The following is intended to be seen as "a game" in an internalized metaphorical sense
BNG to Dude: Let's try and find out what is causing the many visuals in the sky that have been heavily investigated but still remain unexplained. NOT "are they "alien" ships?"
DUDE to BNG: I would love to know if there have been such visuals, and what they might really be, but I can only think and talk about such things if you agree to play my game. The rules are that you have to prove to my satisfaction that there really have been unexplained sightings before I will agree to think or talk about it.
BNG: Well how about the Battle of Los Angeles? Many hundreds of visuals, radar confirmations, many conflicting military, newspaper, and eye-witness reports, etc., etc.
DUDE: Nope. This is not evidence, just anecdotal hogwash.
BNG: What would you consider evidence?
DUDE: I have no idea. that's up to you. My rules. "Burden of Proof" is solely yours including finding evidence that I admit I cannot recognize.
BNG: How can I play your game if I don't know what I have to do to keep you playing?
DUDE: That's up to you to find something that will keep me playing. I can't think of anything I would recognize, so you can't win. I quit and you lose the game. |
Dude, is this an application of critical thinking? If several people are genuinely interested in trying to solve a mystery, is the critical thinking game that requires polarization into "sides" the only effective way to do it? And, in the silly example above, I did not posit that the aforementioned UBIAP were thought to be extraterrestrial, only that there actually had been examples of Unexplained But Investigated Aerial Phenomena.
My point is: Is it possible to investigate unknown or myterious phenomena such as UAP in a cooperative venture with all parties joining in a search for corroborating or debunking evidence, open discussion of any evidence discovered, possible agreement to discard some evidence and accept other, and finally reach a consensual conclusion? Without two groups taking adversarial positions and one "side" demanding evidence from the other? Could a cooperative search like this be done in consonance with the requirements of of critical thinking?
As I read the minutes of the Condon Report, it appears that a methodology such as I have described above is probably what took place. Were these scientists employing critical thinking?
As you know, the Condon Committee concluded that most examples of UFO's were explicable as conventional balloons, clouds, hallucinations, etc.; but there were a significant number of reports that could not be attributed to conventional causes and remained unexplained. The Report ended with this suggestion| suggested that "persons with good ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported" by Federal government agencies on a case by case basis. In particular, the Committee noted that there were gaps in scientific knowledge in the fields of "atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric electricity" that might benefit from further research in the UFO field.[2] |
Was the Condon Report a result of critical thinking?
| I said that the first step in investigating UAP (if it was really worth any one's time and money to do it) would be pointing a bunch of high definition video cameras at the sky. |
| launch a dozen low orbit satellites with high resolution optics pointed down to whatever altitude you think UAP are most likely to happen. |
I have no information that suggests that these observation methodologies have not been and are not being used. Certainly, NATO, attempts to identify absolutely everything that flies in the skies. But a great deal of what the US Government and the US Military forces does and knows is classified and not available to the public at large. Even the very existence of the Groom Lake facility was classified until a few years ago. | Do you want to discover the cause of UAP, |
Yes| or do you want to waste time and effort looking for evidence that supports your presumtion of the cause? |
No| Only one of those is worth your time, the other will never get you a meaningful answer. |
Why does the second alternative not describe the process of the Scientific Method if "presumption of cause" means "hypothesis as to cause"? If I am looking at a relativfely few cases out of many thousands -all of which have been investigated and ordinary causation has been ruled out; why is it not reasonable to examine the still-unexplained causes with a hypothesis (or an assumption) in mind?
As you can see, I am quite confused about the conflation or not of the Scientific Method and the requirements of Scientific Thinking. I am certain that you can clear up my confusion.
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 21:09:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
All I am asking is this:
Is there anything - that is possible to produce - that would persuade you to wait a while and listen to additional narrative before reaching final conclusions regarding delusion on the part of alien-claimers? |
Well, it's been said before but it bears repeating: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It wouldn't necessarily have to be LP producing an alien, but it would be nice if someone would do it or something similar. The knowledge of the very existence of aliens would make LP's claims more probable and less extraordinary. Even more so if we knew that they were here on Earth. Even more so if we knew that they had an affinity for "borrowing" people. Even more so if we knew that that were doing it often in the US. As it is, we know nothing of the sort.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2011 : 21:23:13 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| What is the logically inescapable mandate of critical thinking that dictates what procedures are "appropriate" and what are not? It sounds like some silly game, or debate, in which there are arbitrary rules that must be followed but which do not necessarily relate to the truth that is being searched. |
Why do you state your premises before your conclusion when forming a syllogism? Because that is the only way it makes sense in formal logic. Critical thinking and the scientific method are based in the same logic, so there are rules involved. Premise, premise, therefore conclusion. In order for that to work all the premises must be true and the conclusion must necessarily follow from them. If you ask me to assume the truth of any premise, in order to reach any conclusion, then you are out of bounds in this game.
Referring specifically to the burden of proof, and to answer your next question, its adversarial because I am not a party to your particular investigation. When you ask me to evaluate your claim, you must convince me that your claim has merit. If you can't, then of what practical use is your claim? The entire point of making an assertion, in this context, is to convince other people it is true. It is also inherently confrontational to doubt another person's claim, just look at how LP reacted to the very mild criticism he was met with at first. So it's a form of conflict. It doesn't have to involve harsh words or meanspirited insults, but sometimes it devolves into that even in the most professional circles.
| Well, that pretty well answers my question. Critical thinking dictates to Dude that only a live alien, a dead alien, or an example of advanced alien technology would constitute evidence. OK. That educates me a lot! Has anyone presented you with information concerning live aliens, dead aliens, or alien technology? |
You have missed my point by several light years. Almost, it seems, intentionally. The sarcasm is unappreciated as well.
What I'm saying is very simple. I do not know what would or would not constitute evidence of alien visitation. I have no idea! But, whatever the evidence, it would have to be capable of satisfying all the premises necessary for aliens to be here. The only things of that nature, that I can think of, are those I listed. Could there be more? Yeah, sure. I don't know what they would be though. How could I? NASA xenobiologists, who are the professionals paid to think about this stuff, aren't even sure we will recognize life on other planets if we get out there and looking.
As for your actual question there.... what?
....where in the application of the Scientific Method to the investigation of an unexplained phenomenon, does the "assumption" that the scientist has about the unexplained phenomena become a "hypothesis"? Or is critical thinking not necessarily part of the Scientific Method?
|
Now you are delving into the ridiculous, keep it up and I'll just stop talking to you. But to answer your question...
You don't start with an assumption. Ever. You start with a series of observations. Sometimes those observations will suggest a cause, then you can formulate a hypothesis and devise a test for it.
| Dude, is this an application of critical thinking? |
No, the imbecilic paragraph you wrote there is what I'd call a calculated insult.
| If several people are genuinely interested in trying to solve a mystery, is the critical thinking game that requires polarization into "sides" the only effective way to do it? |
If you want to convince people outside of your group, then it is the best way. People are going to be wary of new claims, not open and accepting. Even in the scientific community, when you offer a paper up for publishing, to a group of your peers who are legitimately interested in the advance of knowledge, you better have your shit together or they will fuck you up. Arguments, evidence, and methodology that can't stand up to intense scrutiny will be shat upon. By your best friend.
My point is: Is it possible to investigate unknown or myterious phenomena such as UAP in a cooperative venture with all parties joining in a search for corroborating or debunking evidence, open discussion of any evidence discovered, possible agreement to discard some evidence and accept other, and finally reach a consensual conclusion? Without two groups taking adversarial positions and one "side" demanding evidence from the other? Could a cooperative search like this be done in consonance with the requirements of of critical thinking?
|
Like I said, you could assemble a group of people to do just that. Happens all the time. Labs, for example, require several people working in concert to deliver results. At that point its all about convincing other people in your field, and that requires rigorous adherence to standards of evidence, logic, and method.
People everywhere follow this kind of thinking about inconsequential things too. I call you up to chat about my fishing trip and tell you I caught a 50lb catfish, you are probably thinking I'm so full of shit... I email you a picture, you think ok, maybe, or maybe its photo shopped. I show up at your door holding it, and you say "wow, nice fish."
Why does the second alternative not describe the process of the Scientific Method if "presumption of cause" means "hypothesis as to cause"? If I am looking at a relatively few cases out of many thousands -all of which have been investigated and ordinary causation has been ruled out; why is it not reasonable to examine the still-unexplained causes with a hypothesis (or an assumption) in mind?
As you can see, I am quite confused about the conflation or not of the Scientific Method and the requirements of Scientific Thinking. I am certain that you can clear up my confusion.
|
A hypothesis has to meet some requirements as well, mainly it must be testable. You can't look at a handful of UAP and just say, "my hypothesis is that these are caused by aliens." A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Looking at a small number of UAP and saying that they might be aliens isn't a hypothesis, its a presumption.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2011 : 00:47:10 [Permalink]
|
| FTL travel is not a requirement for alien visitation. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2011 : 01:40:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
FTL travel is not a requirement for alien visitation. |
You've missed the point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2011 : 22:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Why do you state your premises before your conclusion when forming a syllogism? Because that is the only way it makes sense in formal logic. Critical thinking and the scientific method are based in the same logic, so there are rules involved. Premise, premise, therefore conclusion. |
| Critical thinking and the scientific method are based in the same logic, so there are rules involved. Premise, premise, therefore conclusion. In order for that to work all the premises must be true and the conclusion must necessarily follow from them. |
Is syllogistic logic, as defined in the Organon and refined by Emmnual Kant, the definitive reasoning methodology used in critical thinking? | If you ask me to assume the truth of any premise, in order to reach any conclusion, then you are out of bounds in this game. |
Can critical thinking be integral to the rules of any other game than the one to which you refer? | When you ask me to evaluate your claim, you must convince me that your claim has merit. If you can't, then of what practical use is your claim? |
Another way to ask my "game" question above: Is it possible to obtain useful information about unresolved aspects of reality in any other manner but the construction of truth claims? Is the entire pursuit of knowledge only possible by application of critical thinking to a variety of truth claims? | So it's a form of conflict. It doesn't have to involve harsh words or meanspirited insults, but sometimes it devolves into that even in the most professional circles. |
Are harsh words and meanspirited insults part of the critical thinking process?bngbuck
Well, that pretty well answers my question. Critical thinking dictates to Dude that only a live alien, a dead alien, or an example of advanced alien technology would constitute evidence. OK. That educates me a lot! Has anyone presented you with information concerning live aliens, dead aliens, or alien technology? Dude
You have missed my point by several light years. Almost, it seems, intentionally. The sarcasm is unappreciated as well. |
|
Point well taken. My apologies. sarcasm is almost always acrimonious in affect and not conducive to learning. Better phrased:| I understand that you have difficulty in specifically defining what would constitute evidence of alien visitation. Would it be possible to employ critical thinking in a cooperative effort to attempt such definition prior to the claimant accepting the "you're the one" challenge? Do the strictures of critical thinking rule out such cooperation - which is somewhat similar to the rules of full disclosure in criminal and civil litigation - in making judgments as to the truth value of claims? |
| The only things of that nature, that I can think of, are those I listed. Could there be more? Yeah, sure. I don't know what they would be though. How could I? |
Well, the cheap shot is: "How could anyone"? (including the claim-maker). However, that way lies surrender of the very attempt at investigation. I think the key here may be in the actual degree of interest that each party (claim-maker and skeptic) has in the subject matter. It seems obvious to me (IMO) that if there is little or no interest in the subject matter of the topic under investigation on the part of either party, one could not expect that any evidence could be forthcoming. It's just not worth the aggravation on the part of the claimant or the skeptic to examine thousands of narratives ranging from a few that are intriguing to many that are obviously absurd, in order to pursue the subject. It is very easy to invoke Occam and simply surgically sever the process. Perhaps prematurely.| Now you are delving into the ridiculous, keep it up and I'll just stop talking to you. But to answer your question... |
It would be as easy to take offense at patronizing commentary such as this as it is to take offense at my regrettable sarcasm above. Please refrain. | But to answer your question |
Thanks.| You don't start with an assumption. Ever. You start with a series of observations. Sometimes those observations will suggest a cause, then you can formulate a hypothesis and devise a test for it. |
That was my general understanding of the scientific method when I first encountered it sixty-odd years ago. However, what I do not understand is the etiology of the "observation" phase of the SM. May one go looking for evidence of a particular phenomenon with a "hunch", or (god forbid) an "intuition" or some other pre-obsrvational inclination; or is it mandatory that observations occur spontaneously without any prejudice aforethought on the part of the observer? Must observations of unexplained and uncatalogued phenomena be entirely random and accidental as to their origin? This is not sarcasm or playing with words, I actually don't know; and much research on line over the past few weeks has not made it clear to me. | No, the imbecilic paragraph you wrote there is what I'd call a calculated insult. |
Again, your language choice is unfortunate and unjustified. There certainly was no insult intended. Please respond with a full quotation paste of the paragraph to which you are referring together with a comment as to why it appeared offensive. Otherwise, I consider your choice of a personally derogative adjective purely gratuitous, and not worthy of a serious reply to a serious query.| If you want to convince people outside of your group, then it is the best way. People are going to be wary of new claims, not open and accepting. Even in the scientific community, when you offer a paper up for publishing, to a group of your peers who are legitimately interested in the advance of knowledge, you better have your shit together or they will fuck you up. Arguments, evidence, and methodology that can't stand up to intense scrutiny will be shat upon. By your best friend. |
Accepting that at face value would prompt me to say that some standardization; or at least formalization, of {what constitutes evidence} is needed - beyond "perhaps I'll recognize it when it is presented to me".| its all about convincing other people in your field, and that requires rigorous adherence to standards of evidence, logic, and method. |
1. Standards of evidence - absolutely! Specific to each investigation!
2. Standards of logic - consistency with all requirements of valid inference and deduction.
3. Standards of methodology - as applies to both evidence and logic.| I show up at your door holding it, and you say "wow, nice fish." |
How do I know you didn't buy it?| A hypothesis has to meet some requirements as well, mainly it must be testable. You can't look at a handful of UAP and just say, "my hypothesis is that these are caused by aliens." A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Looking at a small number of UAP and saying that they might be aliens isn't a hypothesis, its a presumption. |
I need more specific quantification of the bolded generalizations above in order to grasp the full meaning of your statement.
Dude, I genuinely appreciate your earnest effort to detail your understanding of the meaning of the terms <Critical Thinking> and <Scientific Method>. The quotations from others as to definition of the terms have been very informative to me also. I am gradually coalescing a conceptualization of what is meant by "critical thinking" and its adjuncts. The questions I ask are not intended to irritate you, rather to clear up what may be misconceptions on my part concerning what is obviously a core ideation of these forums.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Critical thinking
