|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:30:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
There is also the perception by folks like Gary that the skeptics want the dowser to fail. That is not true. What skeptics seek is empirical evidence that the claim has validity. Many, like myself, would welcome a positive result of a paranormal claim.
How cool would that be?
But Gary can't go there. To admit that the tests have been fair and that so far have ended in failure would blow his perception of us as evildoers standing in the way of progress as he sees it. He has no choice because, unlike us, he is armed with a certainty that makes correction impossible. He is stuck and closed-minded. He is blind to the fact that the very tests that he deplores are an example of our open-mindedness. He doesn't get that we have a willingness to be wrong if that is where the evidence takes us.
We only doubt. Doubt is the motivator of inquiry. Gary is unencumbered with doubt and is therefore unmovable, unreasonable and trapped. Trapped because Gary can only accept evidence that confirms his beliefs. And if the evidence doesn't confirm his beliefs he will yell foul or torture the evidence until it fits.
It's sad, really...
|
Nicely written, but aren't you being a bit arrogant making so many assumptions?
The real arrogance is on the part of the testers, who think they have the capability of proving things with their inadequate testing and resources. They must have known nothing would be achieved by this - so who asked for the tests to be done and what was the real purpose behind them? To write a book, sway public opinion or, god forbid, honest scientific inquiry?
It reminds me of those silly myth busting TV shows - but that's all about entertainment, TV ratings and money etc.... and mind control.
|
And once again, thanks for making my point. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:32:57 [Permalink]
|
But is commonly accepted truth really a better guide or is it just all about programming and mind control?
Conspiracy theories suggest the media is constantly lying to us and we are constantly being told things that simply aren't true.
Did George Bush need positive proof to invade a country looking for weapons of mass destruction and did he find any?
|
I consider commonly accepted truth to be, indeed, a better guide than just my own personal delusions.
Georgie did not feel like he needed positive truth.
Too bad as no weapon of mass destruction were found. Hence invalidating the (official) reason for the war.
If he had wanted positive proof, like the UN did, the war and tens of thousands deaths might have been avoided.
Sad, but an argument for scepticism nonetheless.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Single blind tests are sufficient for testing dowsing. That is, the observers of the test don't know where the targets are located. Control groups are not necessary. The stuff gets buried or hidden by one group and another group observes. That way the dowsers can read no clues off of body language or facial expressions of the observers. Much the same as the dowser would face in the field. Gary keeps claiming that strict scientific testing will foil any test. But in reality, the test is only strict in the sense that one group knows where the items are because they put them there. And that group is not present for the test until it comes to an end and the results are tabulated.
Bottom line is, for the dowser, it should be business as usual.
|
But this is actually only testing the dowsers' self-proclaimed dowsing skills and does not actually test dowsing itself.
Also the dowsers could have been anyone - even people with a vested interest in making others believe dowsing was a load of rubbish - how can single or double blind tests deal with all of these possibilities? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:38:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Well, if objective scientific tests are of no value, then what do you use to determine the validity of dousing?
|
That's just it - what is valid? |
I'm asking you. What do methods do you, Gary, personally use to determine what is valid? How do you check your conclusions? How can you tell when you are mistaken? What do you rely on as a guide to truth?
| Do we just go along with what experts and scientists have decided for us with their limited resources and capabilities or do we develop higher levels of consciousness? |
But by what measure? How can we tell when our consciousness has been raised? How do we distinguish between knowing something and only thinking we know something?
Science is a impartial method designed to eliminate human bias and error. You don't think it accomplishes that. Fine. But then what do you use in its place? What is your touchstone with reality, Gary? How can you tell when your conclusions are an accurate reflection of the way things actually are and when they aren't?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2008 10:39:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
It doesn't mean that psychic stuff is just imagination, though. It's just something that lies beyond limited human comprehension and beyond the limited measuring parameters of the tools that our limited intelligence can design and manufacture. |
What a wonderfully self-defeating argument. Once again, Gary, you have outwitted yourself.
Didn't even glance at that article I mentioned earlier, did you, Gary?
You also wrote:| Also the dowsers could have been anyone - even people with a vested interest in making others believe dowsing was a load of rubbish - how can single or double blind tests deal with all of these possibilities? |
How do you deal with the possibility that you are a malevolently evil snowmobile, Gary? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:43:16 [Permalink]
|
But this is actually only testing the dowsers' self-proclaimed dowsing skills and does not actually test dowsing itself. |
That's actually true.
It's meaningless from a practical point of view, but it still is true. I might use this kind of example next time I need to debate the 'just a theory' bit witch cretintionists. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:47:16 [Permalink]
|
Gary:
Also the dowsers could have been anyone - even people with a vested interest in making others believe dowsing was a load of rubbish - how can single or double blind tests deal with all of these possibilities? |
This is the torture I spoke of, those evil skeptics with a vested interest. I bet if any test result came out positive for dowsing, Gary would have no problem with that or the science behind it, even though it would be the same science.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:47:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And Gary, if your claim is that no testing will ever verify this higher reality that you speak of, and you are right about that, why bother us with it? While dowsing is testable, a higher reality is not because it is not a falsifiable claim. It is no different than any God claim. You have your faith. Is that not sufficient for you? Is yours a proselytizing religion? Do you need converts? Why look here?
So far, your arguments fail on every level. Your evidence is all anecdotal just like every other religious faith. Anecdotal evidence fails because humans are easily deluded. And so far, you have provided us with nothing to cause us to think that you are not deluded as well.
Let's face it Gary. You're just pushing another religion.
|
Again you are making assumptions. I'm not pushing anything. I'm simply testing the validity and limitations of skeptical viewpoints. I'm interested in your responses and comments but they haven't been very objective up to now.... or persuasive, for that matter.
Isn't skepticism a religion?
Isn't skepticism based on the faith that we can tell what is true and what is false simply through the process of logical deduction and scientific observation?
How can we be sure that is valid?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
That's actually true.
It's meaningless from a practical point of view, but it still is true. |
Good catch, Simon. How does one test dowsing without dowsers? How does one check for "communication with the higher consciousness" while specifically eliminating one end of the "communication?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:51:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Isn't skepticism a religion? |
Nope.| Isn't skepticism based on the faith that we can tell what is true and what is false simply through the process of logical deduction and scientific observation? |
Nope.| How can we be sure that is valid? |
We can't, which is why we don't do it. Thanks for playing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:00:48 [Permalink]
|
Isn't skepticism based on the faith that we can tell what is true and what is false simply through the process of logical deduction and scientific observation?
How can we be sure that is valid?
|
Indeed we can not.
Skepticism (and Science) are based on a certain number of assumptions. That events have causes. That the same causes will have the consequences and that causes come before the events...
These assumptions are unconsciously accepted by anybody, including many animals, and are pretty much universal.
You pretty much need such assumptions, from a practical point of view, to live in a, somewhat, predictable universe.
Scepticism differs from other thought system because it is trying to make as little of these assumptions as possible.
Now, your argument boils down to: 'If we start making assumptions, why not assume that what I want to believe is true?'
| How do you deal with the possibility that you are a malevolently evil snowmobile, Gary? |
I find that extremely funny for some reason. Mind if I pilfer it for my sig.? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:01:34 [Permalink]
|
Gary:
Isn't skepticism based on the faith that we can tell what is true and what is false simply through the process of logical deduction and scientific observation? |
It's a set of tools to cut through our bias. It is as objective as any test can be. The tools of critical thinking and the scientific method cut both ways. Without a method for testing the truth value of a claim, all claims become equal. And if all claims are equal, no claim has usable value.
You call it a religion, but since our conclusions are all tentative, based on any new evidence that might come along, they are, unlike religion, subject to change.
Religion on the other hand is dogma and not subject to change.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:04:30 [Permalink]
|
You call it a religion, but since our conclusions are all tentative, based on any new evidence that might come along, they are, unlike religion, subject to change.
Religion on the other hand is dogma and not subject to change.
|
Also, I'd say that religion needs to incorporate supernatural elements of some sorts, which scepticism does not. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:12:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Well, if objective scientific tests are of no value, then what do you use to determine the validity of dousing?
|
That's just it - what is valid? |
I'm asking you. What do methods do you, Gary, personally use to determine what is valid? How do you check your conclusions? How can you tell when you are mistaken? What do you rely on as a guide to truth?
| Do we just go along with what experts and scientists have decided for us with their limited resources and capabilities or do we develop higher levels of consciousness? |
But by what measure? How can we tell when our consciousness has been raised? How do we distinguish between knowing something and only thinking we know something?
Science is a impartial method designed to eliminate human bias and error. You don't think it accomplishes that. Fine. But then what do you use in its place? What is your touchstone with reality, Gary? How can you tell when your conclusions are an accurate reflection of the way things actually are and when they aren't?
|
To determine what is valid we must first experience something and then start looking for some means of validation. We first question our teachers who provided us with the tools that facilitated our experience in the first place - they must know something in order to have achieved this remarkable feat. We continue to study with them until we can learn no more.
Then we are left with only our inner wisdom to guide us - we may, in turn, teach others or choose another path.
The need to assess if we know something or only thing we know something depends on our attachment to the things we know or think we know.
There are always higher states of consciousness and higher states of truth which will inevitably invalidate what we encountered in lower states of consciousness. The achievement of ever higher levels of consciousness is where our focus must lie or, yes, we may get stuck in some delusion or lower realm of truth.
That's why we focus on the process and not just the information that may come to us along the way.
While science is looking outside into illusion and trying to quantify an explain that illusion the true nature of reality can only be experienced by going inwards.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:18:34 [Permalink]
|
| There are always higher states of consciousness and higher states of truth which will inevitably invalidate what we encountered in lower states of consciousness. |
How exactly did you reach this conclusion? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Shirley Maclaine & Kevin Ryerson
