|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2006 : 20:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To call them crazy, and that is what calling them delusional is saying about them, because they don't think the way I do, does not work for me.
If you are going with the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality, then I can see where you are comming from.
Seriously though, if somebody truly believes the earth is only 6K years old, despite them being aware of the evidence... that is a delusion.
quote:
Exactly when did our small t, critical thinking and the scientific method, become a big T?)
It didn't. And I don't know if I should be pissed at you for suggesting it, or if you actually are not understanding what I'm saying.
I can't tell you exactly how old the earth is. But based on the evidence I can give you an approximation. Old. 4.5billion years, give or take a few million.
Based on that evidence, which is the product of cosmology, physics, geology, astronomy, and a couple other fields that all agree to a very old age of the earth... I can tell you that the earth is NOT 6000 years old.
quote:
I would add to that if your belief causes you persistent or debilitating discomfort.
Only if you are a clinician looking for a diagnosis.
|
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
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 21:12:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
It didn't. And I don't know if I should be pissed at you for suggesting it, or if you actually are not understanding what I'm saying.
Can I have more choices please?
If I explain to a person exactly why a homeopathic can not work as its proponents claim without ignoring the physics that say creating a memory vibration in water of a substance so diluted that not even a molecule of the original “medicine” often remains in not possible, and tests have never substantiated that claim, and they say “but it worked for me” is that person delusional?
That person has tangible evidence that the homeopathic worked. It isn't the kind of evidence we would accept. We could come up with all kinds of reasons why the person might conclude that it works even though it doesn't. Perhaps it did work, but not for the reason they think.
My brother is a New Ager. He says “hey, I just do what works. If it doesn't work I won't do it anymore.” He takes homeopathics and cleans his ears with ear candles. He doesn't give a flying fuck about the science. I have explained it to him and sent him studies. He doesn't care. Is he delusional?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 22:26:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We don't use theories to gather evidence. We form theories from the evidence which has been gathered.
Here is a simple philosophy experiment. Sit down in your chair and observe. When done in a class room, the vast majority of students will ask "Observe what?" This is demonstrating that we must know what we wish to observe before we can meaningfully observe it.
Scientists don't just go around making observations, writing down everything they see. They have a focus. This focus is either completely new or shoots off of another theory. Either way, the scientist must know his focus before he can gather evidence to support or contradict it. Otherwise, a scientist would be making countless, meaningless, observations. Hypothesis comes first, falsification, or an attempt at it, comes second.
quote:
The existence of light does not depend upon the theory of light, and our instruments depend upon the existence of light, not the theory of it.
Yes, sorry, I was not clear. The way our instruments work depends on the way that (in this example) light works. If light works in a way that differs from what we would expect, then we will see an anomaly. Now there are two options. Either light isn't working the way we expect, creating the anomaly, or the anomaly is something else which exists in our universe and is part of something completely different. And when we are using light to make observations about other things, which one do we pick? Is it the light's fault, or is it something new that we've discovered? This is known as Duhem's problem.
quote:
The evidence always comes first. It is explained in different ways by different theories, but the evidence itself, however, never changes.
Evidence isn't purely objective. It isn't subjective either, but it is what I like to call reasonably objective. But still, all evidence is interpreted. That's how all our observations work, we interpret them. Because of this, it allows our interpretations to be wrong.
If you say the evidence never changes, all I have to say is piltdown man.
quote:
For the record, I believe we can all agree we are limiting this discussion to reasonable possibilities.
We are talking about those who are irrational, unreasonable. Why must we restrict ourselves to reasonable possibilities if that's the exact opposite with what we are discussing?
quote:
Then I ask you, is there ANY way that the earth could possibly be 6000 years old?
Again, I'll take the liberty of guessing your answer. No.
You'd be incorrect. If you could invalidate all the evidence supporting the notion it is +10 thousand years old and find evidence supporting 6,000, then the earth, as best we know, is 6,000 years old. Do I think it will ever be done? Absolutely not. Do I know it will never be done? Absolutely not. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 01/19/2006 22:27:15 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 23:38:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Kil:If I explain to a person exactly why a homeopathic can not work as its proponents claim without ignoring the physics that say creating a memory vibration in water of a substance so diluted that not even a molecule of the original “medicine” often remains in not possible, and tests have never substantiated that claim, and they say “but it worked for me” is that person delusional?
That person has tangible evidence that the homeopathic worked. It isn't the kind of evidence we would accept. We could come up with all kinds of reasons why the person might conclude that it works even though it doesn't. Perhaps it did work, but not for the reason they think.
You are not understanding what I am saying.
I guess you completely missed the part where I said that people who refuse to examine evidence in order to justify their false belief are, indeed, merely IRRATIONAL. How many times do I need to say that before you see it? This makes four or five in this thread alone.
I'm starting to get the feeling that some of you are reading only the sentences you want to so you can disagree with something.
quote:
Posted by Ricky:If you say the evidence never changes, all I have to say is piltdown man.
While that sentence leaves itself open to interpretation... Piltdown was a fraud from the getgo. It was never legitimate. Deliberate fraud is an extremely poor analogy to use to support your position anyway. Humans can be fooled by other humans, sometimes with extreme ease.
quote:
Here is a simple philosophy experiment. Sit down in your chair and observe. When done in a class room, the vast majority of students will ask "Observe what?" This is demonstrating that we must know what we wish to observe before we can meaningfully observe it.
Scientists don't just go around making observations, writing down everything they see. They have a focus. This focus is either completely new or shoots off of another theory. Either way, the scientist must know his focus before he can gather evidence to support or contradict it. Otherwise, a scientist would be making countless, meaningless, observations. Hypothesis comes first, falsification, or an attempt at it, comes second.
Incorrect.
Observation is what led to the very first hypothesis. You cannot have a hypothesis without some observation to BASE it on. Why am I right? Think about it. Tell me when you could have hypothesis without an initial observation. Just doesn't work.
What you are trying to say, I think, is valid only when you are working off of a first hypothesis and attempting to add something (like finding additional evidence to support your first hypothesis).
quote:
You'd be incorrect. If you could invalidate all the evidence supporting the notion it is +10 thousand years old and find evidence supporting 6,000, then the earth, as best we know, is 6,000 years old. Do I think it will ever be done? Absolutely not. Do I know it will never be done? Absolutely not.
So, you really believe there is a chance the earth is 6000 years old.
Mindboggling, to say the least.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 00:30:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
...He doesn't give a flying fuck about the science. I have explained it to him and sent him studies. He doesn't care. Is he delusional?
I'd say "No." People throw words like "delusional" around too readily. I'll go with mainstream physical science myself because I think it has a good track record. If someone else is similarly informed and sees things otherwise- believes in homeopathy etc. (and I've known such people) that's their call. There's nothing to definitively say that I'm not the one who's delusional (even though I seriously doubt it in those instances.) Critical thinking, skepticism etc. can only benefit the uninformed, not the informed who see things otherwise regardless. People who "know better" do that all the time (e.g. a bank president who accumulates a fortune in gambling debts) for whatever their reasons. Not much to be said about it. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 02:06:23 [Permalink]
|
Well, when I call someone "delusional" all I really mean by that is "persisting under a false truth" or "false impression of reality," when, and this is key, the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.
It isn't a clinical definition, but neither is it meant to be.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 02:09:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
My brother is a New Ager. He says “hey, I just do what works. If it doesn't work I won't do it anymore.” He takes homeopathics and cleans his ears with ear candles. He doesn't give a flying fuck about the science. I have explained it to him and sent him studies. He doesn't care. Is he delusional?
What would you call him?
I guess part of the problem with defining "delusional" is we expect people to make an attempt to make sense of things. When people just don't care what reality is, well, is there even a word for that?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 02:32:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
... When people just don't care what reality is...
I think "when push comes to shove" few people don't. If most homeopathy fans caught "flesh eating bacteria" or something ugly serious, they'd say "screw the homeopathy" and hit a hospital in a heartbeat.
Thing is, science assumes a guy who thinks homeopathy helps him is affected similarly as almost everyone else. An informed person who believes it helps him may be indeed be helped through psychological mechanisms ("power of suggestion") anyway, manifesting in physiological ways. All science says is "Realize that's not generally the case." So maybe his brother is right. Maybe he's the exception to the rule- some probably are (but I wouldn't bet on it.)
I saw a TV show where the question, "Is there anything special about Starbuck's Coffee?" was addressed by sending a sample to an analytical lab. Ran it through spectrometers etc. results came back- "Nope, just coffee." Well, of course it's just coffee... but I still think their coffee is a lot better than some of the mud I've had- the testing is just too simplistic, thus, the question is being wrongly addressed. All science can tell us is that it's not half-sawdust and doesn't have insecticide residue or rat shit in it. Not whether the flavor is good. Regarding the above, for some people- but not very many- the same might hold true... science might fail in their cases, science being too crude in its methods.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 03:30:18 [Permalink]
|
Well in my state of delusions of grandeur, I can see where you are all getting confused about these definitions.
The problem here is all these terms have continuums of included conditions, multiple meanings, and overlap with each other.
Delusion, as I found out looking for the diagnosis of pathological liar is currently used in psychiatry to denote from very mild to very severe psychotic states. Borderline personality disorders include delusional story telling, among other things like paranoia. You may have one or more component. At the same time a person who's had a complete break with reality is also delusional.
GeeMack has wrongly concluded that since a certain thing is irrational that describes all things irrational. It's irrational to drive the long way home but that doesn't mean it's not irrational to think the Earth is 6,000 years old also.
Then you have what Dude is referring to where the delusion is a failure to see what is obvious to others.
But there are a mix of various proportions of elements from the following list in all of these scenarios and there is no one single definition like, "everyone who's stupid is also delusional", or that, "no one whose stupid is also delusional".
- Lack of skills to understand science, evidence and what not. In other words true ignorance, not delusion.
- A more benign and mild form of delusion such as believing in god(s) which can also be more severe and not so benign and in the severely delusional category.
- Irrational belief which might be one of two types.
- One would be the brainwashed person who has been conditioned to believe and irrationally refuses to look at any contradictory evidence. This seems more like your eyes are closed than that you are delusional
- The other would be someone who can't look at alternatives rationally because of a mental defense mechanism that prevents it. This would be someone like Behe who is going to have to die in denial or someday face the fact his recent career was built on an error. That can be ego shattering and probably comes closest to Dude's description of being delusional.
So you are all trying to put everything into neat little categories but it's really a completely intertangled mix involving delusions, irrationality, and ignorance in variable quantities.
I'm so smart.     |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/20/2006 03:31:23 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 06:06:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
...all these terms have continuums...
Great argument. RE continuums, however, I'm not nearly so kind (despite why I'm wrong on this already having been argued in mind-numbing detail in a previous thread.) I still insist there's a lot more subjectivity going on in both the definition, and application of any-and-all terms that come out of the mouths of psychologists than I can buy into. Additionally, in common usage, their meanings are subject to the whims of one-and-all. I hear Republican mouthpieces often referring to Democrats as "Delusional" (and vice-versa). They regularly use "Pathological Liar," "Psychotic," and other DSM-words, too. So essentially psychiatric terms have made possible a nonsensical cliché festival where "anything goes." They've become so mangled, they border on profanity... the FCC should consider banning them.
Another Homeopathic Thought... I think it's just another "snake oil" but I think it's a more honest racket than religion, anyway... homeopathy only claims to be effective for some people, making their efficacy claims possibly true (by the placebo effect) whereas religions promise to benefit all comers... and a God having the qualities they describe, yet helping some of them while ignoring countless others more direly in need is in itself more than contradictory and hypocritical enough to conclude "Sorry, folks, switch to homeopathy." At least homeopathy fulfills or doesn't fulfill its entire promise in hours, days, or weeks... religion doesn't pay-in-full until after one's dead. That kind of "installment plan" is too long for me. How do I know God didn't "go out of business" a few centuries back, and not bother telling a Prophet to put a notice in the paper? |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 08:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnywhite
"Sorry, folks, switch to homeopathy." At least homeopathy fulfills or doesn't fulfill its entire promise in hours, days, or weeks... religion doesn't pay-in-full until after one's dead.
On the plus-side, you won't care; 'cause you're dead. But when homeopathy fails to deliver, you feel miserable. So which one is worse?
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Posted by subjectmatter:
I'm not sure if you are saying that being wrong is identical to being irrational here... if you are then I must disagree. One can certainly be wrong without being irrational.
Aristotle suggested that that it requires energy to maintain a constant speed. He was wrong, but his conclusion was based upon the rational, empirical procedure of observing event and drawing conclusions. He was not being irrational.
You bolded the specific part of my post that uses "indisputable evidence" as a qualifier.... then you post that?
(Edited to add: Refusing to evaluate evidence is irrational, refusing to alter a false conclusion when confronted with evidence to the contrary is delusional, which I'm pretty sure I said in this thread already)
What part of "if you persist in a false belief, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, you are delusional." is unclear to you?
What part of me saying that refusing to examine evidence, when it is presented, is irrational... is unclear to you?
And yes, Aristotle was wrong. I'd bet you just about anything that if you showed him evidence to demonstrate his error to him that he would have acknowledged it and changed his conclusion.
But so what? We are talking about people who REFUSE that step, or are immune to that step.
You misunderstand me, the bolding was yours; I was referring to the following:
quote:
...irrational (or wrong)...
Which appears to me to suggest that you equate irrationality and being being mistaken, which naturally I object to. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 09:54:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
I guess you completely missed the part where I said that people who refuse to examine evidence in order to justify their false belief are, indeed, merely IRRATIONAL. How many times do I need to say that before you see it? This makes four or five in this thread alone.
Okay. That is a possibility. I am perhaps stuck in our debate in chat. It seemed to me that you were being cavalier in your use of the word delusional. At one point when I suggested irrational as a replacement you said that the two words are very close, as if to say, too close to matter.
I will choose to say, at times when I am concerned about the precise meaning of words and how what I say may be taken, to use “irrational” and even “wrong” rather than delusional.
To illustrate my reason for that I think it is fair to point out this very debate over the proper use of the word. I tend to see it as denoting a part of a clinical diagnosis of a mental illness, which may not be intended by the user…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 14:42:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Deliberate fraud is an extremely poor analogy to use to support your position anyway.
What are you talking about? Piltdown man was evidence for evolution. When it was found to be a fraud, it was no longer evidence for evolution.
Such is an example where the evidence for a theory changed.
quote:
Observation is what led to the very first hypothesis. You cannot have a hypothesis without some observation to BASE it on. Why am I right? Think about it. Tell me when you could have hypothesis without an initial observation. Just doesn't work.
What we were talking about is observations made when trying to find evidence for supporting or contradicting a theory. It is getting off track.
"Go into this laboratory; draw near this table crowded with so much apparatus: an electric battery, copper wire wrapped in silk, vessels filled with mercury, coils, a small iron bar carrying a mirror. An observer plunges the metallic stem of a rod, mounted with rubber, into small holes; the iron oscillates and, by means of the mirror tied to it, sends a beam of light over to a celluloid ruler, and the observer follows the movement of light beam on it. There, no doubt, you have an experiment; by means of the vibration of this spot of light, this physicist minutely observes the oscillations of the piece of iron. Ask him now what he is doing. Is he going to answer: "I am studying the oscillations of the piece of iron carrying this mirror?" No, he will tell you that he is measuring the electrical resistance of a coil.
[snip]
It is indeed the case that the experiment you have seen done, like any experiment in physics, involves two parts. In the first place, it consists in the observation of certain facts; in order to make this observation it suffices for you to be attentive and alert enough with your senses. It is not necessary to know physics... In the second place, it consists in the interpretation of the observed facts; in order to make this interpretation it does not suffice to have an alert attention and a practiced eye; it is necessary to know the accepted theories and to know how to apply them, in short, to be a physicist. Any man can, if he sees straight, follow the motions of a spot of light on a transparent ruler, and see if it goes to the right or to the left or stops at such and such a point; for that he does not have to be a great cleric. But if he does not know electrodynamics, he will not be able to finish the experiment, he will not be able to measure the resistance of the coil." - Duhem, Experiment in Physics, pg 145
This is what I mean by evidence is theory laden. I could not find a way to phrase it myself, but Duhem does it perfectly.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 15:47:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky said:This is what I mean by evidence is theory laden. I could not find a way to phrase it myself, but Duhem does it perfectly.
Yeah, and it doesn't mean what you are implying it does. In that example he is clearly using previous knowledge and evidence to make new observations to ADD to an existing theory.
Back it up to something more simple. Apple falls from a tree and hits you in the head. If your name is Newton you took that initial observation and created a field of scientific inquiry from it.
Observation comes BEFORE hypothesis.
quote:
What are you talking about? Piltdown man was evidence for evolution. When it was found to be a fraud, it was no longer evidence for evolution.
Such is an example where the evidence for a theory changed.
I'm saying that fraud is a poor example of evidence for a theory changing. What was unclear about that?
quote:
Subjectmatter said:You misunderstand me, the bolding was yours; I was referring to the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...irrational (or wrong)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which appears to me to suggest that you equate irrationality and being being mistaken, which naturally I object to.
Which indicates that you didn't actually read the entire post. Bottom of page one in this thread. Go back and read the ENTIRE post.
quote:
Kil said:It seemed to me that you were being cavalier in your use of the word delusional. At one point when I suggested irrational as a replacement you said that the two words are very close, as if to say, too close to matter.
I said that delusional is a subset of irrational, not that they were equivilent statements. I may have, jokingly, implied that they were the same thing... but I definitely said (a few lines later in chat) that I didn't consider them really equal. And, in this thread, I have repeatedly stated that those who just refuse to examine the evidence are irrational, not delusional. There, I just said it AGAIN.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 16:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeah, and it doesn't mean what you are implying it does. In that example he is clearly using previous knowledge and evidence to make new observations to ADD to an existing theory.
To measure the electrical resistance of a coil, you must use other scientific theories to do so. To gain evidence, you must rely on already existing theories. How did you miss that?
quote:
I'm saying that fraud is a poor example of evidence for a theory changing. What was unclear about that?
Nothing is unclear, it just doesn't make sense.
From an earlier post:
quote:
So, you really believe there is a chance the earth is 6000 years old.
Mindboggling, to say the least.
Well, you at least got one thing right, it is mind boggling. You are saying there is no chance for the world to be 6,000 years old. So if someone came up to you and said that they have evidence showing the world is 6,000 years old, you would just laugh at them and call them an idiot without even looking at their evidence. That is a cynic, not a skeptic.
If you would look at the evidence, then you must agree that there is a chance that the world is 6,000 years old. There is no reason to look otherwise. Unless you were just being delusional irrational. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
