|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2005 : 10:49:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Isaiah said:
quote:
What tests or methods would you use to give your fledgling hypothesis a fair shake? (Besides running the hypothesis by a bunch of skeptics, because that doesn't work.)
This is interesting, you seem to have a complete lack of understanding how science works.
If I had a hypothesis I would first research to see if this hypothesis is new. If not I would see what work had been done on the subject.
If it was a new hypothesis I would go about developing an experiment to determine if the hypothesis could predict the outcome of the experiment.
The LAST thing I would do to test a hypothesis would be ask skeptics, or christians, or bald people or any other group of people.
I could ask an expert from the applicable field for some insight on how to test my hyposthesis, but I would not 'test' a hypothesis by running it by a group of people. It makes no difference if the people think it is a good hypothesis. It only matters if the evidence supports the hypothesis, otherwise it is only conjecture.
You mean if you had a conjecture that involved the way so-called psychics psychologically or emotionally react to something, you wouldn't go talk to and interview some so-called psychics just to see if your conjecture holds water?
quote:
I could ask an expert from the applicable field for some insight on how to test my hyposthesis, but I would not 'test' a hypothesis by running it by a group of people.
I thought my applicable field of experts was "skeptics" since I was conjecturing about them. I was trying to get insights on how to test this from this group of experts on skeptics.
You would consider yourselves experts on skeptics wouldn't you? |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
 |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 10:56:03 [Permalink]
|
| A side question: How should one go about determining if one was a skeptic earlier in their life? I ask this because for most of my life I think I was a skeptic (never a cynic). How can this be determined. I can't just go through your About Skepticism articles and think about whether I used to agree with all of that (I did). |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:00:55 [Permalink]
|
Thats fine and dandy, but that type of experiment is not a proper scientific one. Because they are so-called and no evidence exists to suggest that so-called psychics are anything but normal humans, asking them about their feelings without actually proving the existance of psychic abilities would be a pointless task and prove nothing.
You are starting with an assumption and looking for data to back it which is not scientific at all. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:06:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Thats fine and dandy, but that type of experiment is not a proper scientific one. Because they are so-called and no evidence exists to suggest that so-called psychics are anything but normal humans, asking them about their feelings without actually proving the existance of psychic abilities would be a pointless task and prove nothing.
You are starting with an assumption and looking for data to back it which is not scientific at all.
But if the subject of my hypothesis has nothing to do with whether they have psychic abilities or not, and instead the subject revolves around the beliefs and feelings of so-called psychics, how can I get away from talking to psychics about their feelings? |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:11:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But where did they get the beliefs to begin with. People didn't just wake up (ok, maybe in the case of verlch) and believe something out of the blue with no guidance or evidence.
I do not accept as valid your assertion that belief comes from the subconscious. Please provide sources for this assertation.
Of course your belief doesn't come from your subconscious--you don't let it. You'll only believe something if your critical thinking can't find holes in it. You put hurdles in your path to believing everything, so I'm not surprised that you don't have beliefs bubbling up from inside you. And I'm assuming that's the case with most of you skeptics. All I need is anecdotal evidence to show that some (not all) people just have beliefs intuitively and subconsciously arise. And I have at least one person (ME) as an anecdote for that.
Or are you claiming that I'm just imagining that some of my beliefs arrived intuitively and subconsciously?
I'm saying that your definition of belief may differ from those of us here.
If you are talking about religion, then yes, belief originates from outside ourselves.
If you are talking about the appreciation of art or a sunset, then you are talking about a purely emotional response which has no belief behind it.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:28:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I'm saying that your definition of belief may differ from those of us here.
If you are talking about religion, then yes, belief originates from outside ourselves.
If you are talking about the appreciation of art or a sunset, then you are talking about a purely emotional response which has no belief behind it.
What I'm actually talking about is my choice about eight years ago to stop being so skeptical. I think that that choice had an effect on my emotional and aesthetic openness as well as my openness to accepting a belief without evidence.
The only way I know of to explore this is to find a group of ex-skeptics and see if the same thing has happened to them... the best place I know of to find a group of ex-skeptics is those who might be prowling around a skeptics board.
Although I guess another way to explore it would be to convince enough present skeptics to give up their skepticism for a while and record their level of emotional and aesthetic growth or decline. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:38:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You had no idea right away how to test this, but you knew you had to because you wanted to think about this possibility critically. How would you go about trying to fairly evaluate this hypothesis. What tests or methods would you use to give your fledgling hypothesis a fair shake?
On matters that are subjective (emotion and the easthetic) the only objective analysis you can make is of the opinion of those involved.
For example, you ask 100 people if they find a flower beautiful. Yes/no. You recored the results and find that 60% say yes, and you then can say that the majority of people surveyed found the flower beautiful.
Now, as to how to devise a test for you (I think ridiculous) claim that skeptics are "usually inhibited" from experienceing emotions and/or the aesthetic?
That's more complicated. Set up a double blind. You need three sets. To get a fair sample, you probaby need about 500 people in each set.
1. The "Skeptic" set, comprised of people who claim they are skeptics.
2. The "non-skeptic" set, comprised of people who claim to be non-skeptics.
3. The "control" set, comprised of randomly selected people.
You then select your observers, a few people who are unaware of who is a part of which group, to actually administer the study to the people in the sets.
The members of the sets are unawre of the intent of the study. You can make up some pretense for the study.
Then pick 100 objects randomly. As you must acknolwedge that aesthetic judgement is purely subjective, you must have the object set be totally randomly selected. Have your observers ask each person in each group if they find the objects aethetically pleasing. Yes/no answer.
Expanding the study to include an evaluation of emotions should be fairly easy as well. Start with some questions asking the study participants how strongly they experience various emotions, then maybe ask some specific questions about specific emotions. Keep the format of the questions limited to something like a 1to5 scale for answers. For example: "On a scale of 1to5, 5 being very strong and 1 being not at all, how strongly do you generally experience the emotion of love?" Devise about 50 questions along these lines.
Analyze the results. Draw a couple graphs, write a paper.
Damn... I just outlined a masters thesis research project for some aspiring grad student....hehe
That's about the only way I can think of to even begin to objectively examine your claim.
quote:
Or are you claiming that I'm just imagining that some of my beliefs arrived intuitively and subconsciously?
Again, I'll ask you to clarify the context in which you are using the word "belief". I think you are using it as a synonym for "faith". Which is assuredly NOT the context in which I (and I think most skeptics) use the word.
We can't really have any meaningfull discourse on this topic until you clarify your meaning.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:39:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I'm saying that your definition of belief may differ from those of us here.
If you are talking about religion, then yes, belief originates from outside ourselves.
If you are talking about the appreciation of art or a sunset, then you are talking about a purely emotional response which has no belief behind it.
When I say belief, I mean a state of mind in which my trust, or confidence, in the truth (or lack of truth) of something is placed in that thing. This could apply to religion, but could apply much more broadly than that (say to the inherent benignness of man, or malignancy of man).
The only way I could see appreciation of art being a belief would be if one was making a statement like "This is a piece of meaningful art" or "This piece of art has no importance."
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:45:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Then pick 100 objects randomly. As you must acknolwedge that aesthetic judgement is purely subjective, you must have the object set be totally randomly selected.
I actually don't have to acknowledge that aesthetic judgement is purely subjective. I think that the only reason you believe that is because you're so skeptical. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:53:41 [Permalink]
|
| You misinterpret once again, subjective meaning each persons idea of beautiful is different. Some people would only apply beautiful to humans and not associate the word with arcitecture for example. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:54:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Now, as to how to devise a test for you (I think ridiculous) claim that skeptics are "usually inhibited" from experienceing emotions and/or the aesthetic?
Thank you very much by the way for providing a real example of how one could test this.
So, I have another question. When you as a skeptic have a conjecture about something and you find that it hasn't been tested and that you don't have the energy or time to conduct an appropriate test, what do you do with that conjecture mentally? Do you just file it away as unknowable right now? Do you let an assumption toward its truth or non-truth have any weight in your mind? What do you do with all of the conjectures you must come up with all the time but don't have the energy to pursue?
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 11:56:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I actually don't have to acknowledge that aesthetic judgement is purely subjective. I think that the only reason you believe that is because you're so skeptical.
Then there is no point in further discourse here. If definitions cannot be agreed upon, it is worse than pointless to attempt discussion.
Unless, of course, you have some evidence that supports your claim that aesthetic judgements are NOT subjective. In that case, please present it.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 12:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Some people would only apply beautiful to humans and not associate the word with arcitecture for example.
That doesn't mean that those people are correct. Art and aesthetics are subsets of philosophy, which has peer-review. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 12:22:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
That doesn't mean that those people are correct. Art and aesthetics are subsets of philosophy, which has peer-review.
I agree. It also does not mean those people are incorrect. Unless you accept as proof the agreement of a majority of the peers (I don't), philosophical theory as to what is beautiful is impossible to prove. It is entirely subjective. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 12:57:55 [Permalink]
|
Well this discussion appears to be going nowhere fast.
Oh BTW ISAIAH, I don't really appreciate being misquoted!
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
