|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2011 : 23:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
| 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. |
True! But the interesting thing to me is that Le Penseur, all that we know of whom is that he is not a stupid person, professes to know all of those things and more! To me, that is fascinating and I would love to hear more. I strongly doubt that we ever will, however! Even if there is but one chance in a thousand that he was telling the truth, I strongly wish that I could have heard the rest of his story! |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2011 : 00:26:47 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said/asked:
| Is syllogistic logic, as defined in the Organon and refined by Emmnual Kant, the definitive reasoning methodology used in critical thinking? |
It is the foundation, yes.
But there are more recent texts than Kant on the topic.
This text by Dr Cohen is an excellent one for the scientific method. I have a copy of the previous edition that stays on my "frequently referenced" shelf.
Also, in the opening post of this thread, I linked to a site that had a few definitions. They also have a bookstore that migh interest you.
Main website, bookstore link should be obvious.
Ok, 03:25AM, I'll get to the rest after sleep, classes, exercise, and lab.... so monday night sometime.
|
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 - 04/11/2011 : 00:43:21 [Permalink]
|
| True! But the interesting thing to me is that Le Penseur, all that we know of whom is that he is not a stupid person, professes to know all of those things and more! |
Intelligence and honesty are two different things. As are intelligence and sanity. |
 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 01:31:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Hawks.....
| 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. |
True! But the interesting thing to me is that Le Penseur, all that we know of whom is that he is not a stupid person, professes to know all of those things and more! To me, that is fascinating and I would love to hear more. I strongly doubt that we ever will, however! Even if there is but one chance in a thousand that he was telling the truth, I strongly wish that I could have heard the rest of his story!
|
He claims to know those things. Adding unevidenced assertions hardly makes his other assertions any better. And why would you think that there is even one chance in a thousand that he is telling the truth? How about one in a billion? One in 10^100? One in 10 for that matter? How would you assign probabilities here? Would the probabilities change if LP was less intelligent? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 10:07:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Even if there is but one chance in a thousand that he was telling the truth...
|
You think the odds are that good?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 11:35:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
| But there are more recent texts than Kant on the topic. |
Yes. One of the more massive understatements I have heard. Term logic is today considered a small and relatively unimportant part of a highly developed and remarkably complex discipline that includes sentential or propositional logic, symbolic logic and the Boolean algebra, predicate calculus, the modal logic of Clarence Lewis and Arthur Prior and more recently the development of Philosophical Logic with a focus on Truth theory and the logic of common language structure.
I studied some of the basics of these multitudes of subdivisions of the broad topic of Logic about sixty years ago. As Philosophy was my minor field of study, I never approached competence in the more advanced application of much of this esoteric material. I understand however there has been a great deal of work done in this field in the 60-odd years since I was in college, so I do not in any way present myself as expert in logical analysis. I realize that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
I am pretty familiar with the AIEO fourfold and at one point I was required to memorize the 24 valid forms of the 256 total forms of formal syllogism that Aristotole developed. I probably couldn't give you six of them today out of my disappearing memory bank. Fortunately, there's always the Internet, tho'.
I am curious, however, if the rather recent emphasis and popularization of critical thinking from the 1980's up to the present, takes into consideration that there are many more ways than one to logically skin Schrödinger's cat, particularly since the advent of predicate logic? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 11:41:59 [Permalink]
|
OFFC.....
| Intelligence and honesty are two different things. As are intelligence and sanity. |
Do you feel that the terms are mutually exclusive? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 12:03:55 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
| You think the odds are that good? |
Humbert, I have absolutely no idea, nor do I think there is any mathematical way to calculate such odds. Your guess is as good as mine. I was using the term as a figure of speech to indicate a fairly small probability that the LP narrative was completely factual.
My personal bias would be to hear a great deal more of his detailing the particulars of alien existence before reaching a tentative conclusion as to the truth value of his statements. As I am sure you know, there are many possible explanations for a well-spoken person presenting a narrative such as his. I really don't even have a good guess as to who and what LP was (is?} |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 12:46:33 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
| And why would you think that there is even one chance in a thousand that he is telling the truth? How about one in a billion? One in 10^100? One in 10 for that matter? How would you assign probabilities here? Would the probabilities change if LP was less intelligent? |
Yes. I believe that there definitely is some possibility that LP is telling the truth. Would he be telling the truth if he actually is clinically delusional and he is accurately describing his delusions?
Even if he is not delusional, I really and truly believe that there is some possibility that his stories are at least partially true in the normative sense of "true". I have absolutely no way of quantifying that opinion other than the non-specific "more" or "less".
But I need to hear a great deal more to bring that possibility up to the level of "definite probability", or down to "probably crackers"! I just really don't have a close estimate right now of the "truth value" of his story. And I completely understand you and others judging him as crazy or a fraud. I simply don't agree with you at this time. We have different standards. No value judgement there necessarily.| Would the probabilities change if LP was less intelligent? |
Yes. Much higher chance that he was gullible. Lower chance that he was hoaxing. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 16:51:14 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck asked:
| 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? |
That is an open question, one that I can't answer with anything other than "maybe".
But we are talking specifically about proven methods, science and critical thinking. Those are the best methods we have to assign truth values to claims. They are reliable, time tested, and produce results with high fidelity when properly used. They allow us to convince others, and more importantly, they allow us to make predictions and test them. It works, and it works well. You have the perspective (no age jokes, just an observation) to see just how much can be accomplished in a very short time when the scientific method is applied to questions. Remember, back in the stone ages, 20 years ago, when cell phones were experimental technology and weighed 20lb? Now your average cell phone fits in a pants pocket and has more computing power than NASA had to put men on the moon.
| Are harsh words and meanspirited insults part of the critical thinking process? |
No, just human nature.
| 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. |
The value of any investigation is subjective. Also irrelevant. You are almost seeing the problem with your approach I think, when you say "that way lies surrender of the very attempt at investigation". I disagree. What you are experiencing there is your brain telling you that you have a problem with your proposed experimental model. I think you are realizing it, but just not putting all the pieces together. The source of your problem is that saying aliens are abducting people or are responsible for UAPs rests on a large number of unevidenced (and unspoken) claims.
You can't hypothesize out that far away from established fact.
Say, for example, that you had never encountered liquid water before, its an unknown substance to you and your civilization. You walk up and see your reflection, would you be able to hypothesize that spirits live in the water and mimic your every move? Or do you instead have to hypothesize that a quality of liquid water is its ability to reflect light?
When you stumble too far away from established fact is is no longer possible to formulate testable hypotheses. If you can't test it, it ain't worth shit, to coin a phrase.
Part of a well laid out hypothesis is the background info (established premises) which establishes context. Another part is making your prediction (what most people think of when they hear "hypothesis"). Another is stating a null hypothesis, and possibly including an alternative hypothesis.
Another simplistic example:
The sun emits UV radiation (true)
UV radiation can interact with your skin (true)
UV radiation can damage your skin (true)
I hypothesize that if UV radiation damages your skin, then longer exposure times will result in greater damage.
To try and state a hypothesis about aliens...
There are UAPs (true)
Most UAPs have been explained to be the result of normal natural causes (true)
Some UAPs remain unexplained (true)
I hypothesize that if some UAPs are not explainable by natural causes, then some UAPs may be caused by alien spacecraft.
The problems with that are manifold. There are a large number of unstated, and unproven, premises. Aliens actually exist, they can get here, and so on. Then the hypothetical statement, regardless of it's actual truth value if you could eventually satisfy the unstated premises, does not follow from the premises. Those add up to render that syllogism unsound and invalid, and therefore untestable. There is no valid context in which to place it.
About UAPs in general, what you have is a situation that would require a return to the basics of science. Observation, specifically. Eye witness testimony, when you remove all speculation about the cause of UAPs, leaves you with what? A questionmark, and nothing more. The few cases I am aware of that involve video or radar images are inconclusive and insufficient to formulate any hypothesis about cause. You have to make some observations of UAP, preferably with high resolution optics that show very clear images. Once you accomplish this, you can sort them into stacks. Explainable by natural causes, and not. You then go and intensify your observations of the remaining unexplainable ones (if you have any at this point), expand your observations to include other things happening in the same area. Maybe you can detect a correlation....
The ability to form a hypothesis about UAPs is a long way away in terms of the basic work of science. No hypothesis that states they may be caused by aliens is anything other than nonsense at this point, and will remain so until those other unspoken premises can be established. If you can't devise a test based on your hypothesis, you are doing it wrong.
This is also, again, why I can't tell you what would be good evidence for "UAP = aliens" aside from the things that would obviously satisfy the unstated and unproven premises involved. Alien (live or dead), alien tech. There is no context of established premises to work with.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 21:25:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
There have been some new posters lately who don't seem to have any grasp of this skill, and at least one veteran poster who has decided to use "critical thinking" as a derogatory term. |
Where? Sounds entertaining.
Haven't been around much  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2011 : 03:31:05 [Permalink]
|
| Do you feel that the terms are mutually exclusive? |
I don't feel any elaboration on the fact which I stated is necessary to further highlight the redundancy of your initial comment. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 04/12/2011 03:31:41 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2011 : 11:14:13 [Permalink]
|
OFFC.....
Redundancy? Whereof?
Do you believe that Le Penseur is either insane or dishonest, or both?
Was critical thinking involved in arriving at your belief? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2011 : 22:42:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Dude states:
That is an open question, one that I can't answer with anything other than "maybe".
The value of any investigation is subjective. Also irrelevant.
You can't hypothesize out that far away from established fact.
When you stumble too far away from established fact is is no longer possible to formulate testable hypotheses.
If you can't test it, it ain't worth shit,
Then the hypothetical statement, regardless of it's actual truth value does not follow from the premises.
Those add up to render that syllogism unsound and invalid, and therefore untestable.
The ability to form a hypothesis about UAPs is a long way away in terms of the basic work of science
No hypothesis that states they may be caused by aliens is anything other than nonsense at this point
If you can't devise a test based on your hypothesis, you are doing it wrong.
I can't tell you what would be good evidence for "UAP"
There is no context of established premises to work with. |
Dude, If Le Penseur discovered your address, waited until a time when you were not home, then drove a pickup truck to your home and delivered a five foot by two foot by two foot wooden crate with a note on it stating it was a gift to you from Le Penseur - nothing else - left it on your doorstep and drove away; and you came home later, and opened it and found it contained a dead humanoid form, not yet decomposed, that appeared to be an alien corpse (looking like the creature in Spielberg's movie "ET") - what would you do with it?
|
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2011 : 00:37:58 [Permalink]
|
| Call the police and have them investigate a murder? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Critical thinking
